This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nimbus227. 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.
Gary, it's good to see you editing again. I hope you can stay around a while. I split off the De Havilland Gyron Junior from the De Havilland Gyron, as most of the article was about the Gyron. the new article needs more text and specs. Could you take a look, and see if you can help? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I am just doing some repair work to some piston engine articles that were going downhill unopposed. I think I do have something on the Gyrons, will have a look. Not sure how long I will be sticking around although I do watch what's happening most days. To be honest I've forgotten how to edit and it's all a bit slow. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That's why you need to keep in practice :) Anyway, thanks for the additions to the article, especially the specs. - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right there Bill! I got them from 'Flight', seems it was a classified engine for a while, can't find much more unfortunately. I was idly wondering if it should go in the Bristol engine navbox as well, same situation with the AS Viper which was later built by RR.Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back; your input on the Bristol Mercury is needed because the article needs considerable improvement and expansion. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you stay with us! As it is from today I'll have less time to poke around in here for a few months, but I'll join in from time to time. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
May a humble user with 'no rights' beg the indulgence of an Autoreviewer (+trusted)? ;-)
Can't get my head round this article! The cited sources are usually reliable but the info seems at odds.
Amongst other things Jane's states that the Perseus was "the first complete Bristol sleeve-valve engine" and "the first sleeve-valve aero-engine in the world to be put into large quantity manufacture", while the article implies that these honours belong to the Aquila??!
The "Major applications" list comprises the Bristol Bulldog and Bristol Bullpup, but according to their articles these aircraft used the Mercury or Jupiter engines, and there was only one Vickers Venom built which did use the Aquila. Consequently your cited comment in the lead that the Aquila was not put into production rings true, but contradicts the earlier text??!
If you have both the Gunston and the Lumsden maybe you could check these claims out since I'm on unsure ground and reluctant to start hacking away. Cheers Oh Mighty One. :-)) --RedSunset08:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hee, hee!!! I wondered what it was when I saw that! Guess they reckon I won't be writing 'Me and me best mate's band' articles!! Just had a quick look and there is a problem. Lumsden clearly states that the Perseus was the 'first production engine to use the Burt-McCollum sleeve valve'. Date for the Perseus is 1932, he gives 1934 for the Aquila. He doesn't give much info on the Aquila but it was experimental only (and the smallest of the Bristol sleeve valve radials), the lead of the Aquila article needs tweaking as it says 'produced by' followed by 'did not go into production'. Will have a better look later and also what Gunston says in case there is conflicting info (would stick with Lumsden myself). Got to finish the TM off today. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)09:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Re, the applications: I usually put in a note saying that the engine was not necesssarily the main powerplant, I do include all the types that were used as test beds. There is one more application for the Aquila and that is the Bristol 143, whatever that was. If I remember I usually go to the aircraft article and put a cited mention in of the tested engine types as editors are using those articles as a reference (which is easy to get suckered into) and removing the aircraft type from the applications list. A good one recently was the Bristol Beaufighter and Rolls-Royce Griffon which was reverted until I added a cite, didn't beleive it myself until I saw a photo, must have been a beast! Cheers, Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)09:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Phew!!! Just in from a total drenchimg at Beamish Museum and having a quick look at wots 'appnin' while I dry out. Cheers for all this, I knew you'd come up trumps. Do you reckon the Bulldog and Bullpup were used as a test beds then? If so the wording can be tweaked accordingly, and we can add the Bristol Type 143. I won't alter anything until you've completed your checking though. Hope work on the TM went well BTW! Many thanks :D --RedSunset20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just read Gunston who agrees with Lumsden, Perseus 1932, Aquila 1934. Yes, they were just test beds the Bulldog and Bullpup, I'll add a note. TM nearly finished, spent most of today upside down in the rear cockpit, joy! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the Nimbus engine entry. Yes - I am a newbie to Wiki and this was a late night adventure for me. Starting to figure it out. Deciphering the photo rules was a trick - so I deleted the drawings and put up helicopter photos from the commons. The engine photo is one I had on my computer that can from a site selling the engine - I think. It may need to change, but it is the best picture I have.
I have a Nimbus Mark 103 in my shop that I restored (mostly). I can take a picture of it for the main photo if I have to, but mine is not as mint looking. Do you have a lot of Technical expertise with that unit? I could use some of that help too !!
The drawings I wanted to add were from the original BristoL/Siddeley Aero Engine School manual. There is no copyright info anywhere in it, so what can be used? I pulled the engine facts from it, as well as an original RR brochure.
It can be daunting when you start editing, the thing to remember is that if you make a mistake it can be undone easily so don't worry. I suspect the picture you uploaded will get deleted but if you can take a photo of your own engine you can upload it yourself, this is encouraged. I can help with that. My background is airframes/piston engines, have serviced many turbines at flight line level but never 'fiddled' with the internals! The manual copyright is an interesting question, I think I have some manufacturer's manuals with no copyright indication. Again I suspect that copied images from them are not allowed but using and citing information from them most definately is allowed. No worries if you've got any questions about wikipedia editing. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweak away, I'm aware that some of the grammar is 'awkward', too busy referencing facts! Been meaning to fill that redlink for a while, I remember it as a boy and wondered what happened to it, now I know. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got a few spare ones, if not I'll just merge a colon with a comma!!! Or does that result in a cola? ... Hmmmmm. --RedSunset18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:P&WXH2600.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Dear unsigned image police bot, please see 'Permission to freely distribute clearly stated on web page' in the image description summary. I could amend it but quite frankly I can't be bothered, please delete if you feel the need. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I replied at the discussion link given above. The submitter couldn't find the web page with the statement of permission to distribute; I found the proper one and added a link to it. I'm not sure whether the permission statement is legally explicit enough for Wikipedia to keep the image, though. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Colin, I changed the source page, image was a direct link (silly me), next page back [1] has the permission. I just get ticked off with image bots etc. so excuse my tone. I intended to write an article on the engine but I'm concentrating on British engines at the moment. Thanks again. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no worries, I actually found your tone kind of cute. I'm not usually involved with image copyright inquiries, I just happened to see the note while looking here. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As I get older and more cantancorous/opinionated I have less time for 'trivia' which is unfortunately what I classified this interlude as, I'm a nice guy really and working hard to improve the engine articles. What it has done is highlight that there is a possible problem with the article name which might need a move. I am also dealing with an IP who is adding nonsense to engine specifications in a stealthy fashion so my patience is shorter than usual tonight. All the best. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that guy's garbage was the original reason I was looking around here. He's left his marks on a few articles I've worked on too. I'm sure it's frustrating as hell for you, and given his current behavior, I personally hope he gets clobbered with the banhammer. Best of luck. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
To really confuse things, the pic is in use on the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 page, which is described as an XH-2240! IIRC, there is some confusion between sources about whether the displacement number of the X-1800 was XH-2240 or XH-2600. Good to keep this in mind, and try to straighten it out before we wrtie a nother article! - BilCat (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear! I probably put it there Bill, at first glance it looks like the article name is wrong as it is being designated by horsepower and not cubic inches, someone needs to have a look at that a bit more closely (I just skip read it). As I said to Colin I am concentrating on the Brit engines because of a better overview and lack of sources on the American ones. Perhaps the article can be checked, improved etc. with the image staying. I find it hard to understand the questioning when a website says 'Permission to freely distribute' perhaps the missing words are 'to Wikipedia'?! I respect copyright but at times it does seem to get heavy. I am an 'autoreviewer' now which was a very unexpected but welcome sign of trust, perhaps a similar system could be put in place for images. I uploaded that image a long time ago before I knew the procedures properly, we all have to learn (to quote the next page back!). Happy days! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Bill, at a glance in Gunston that engine is the 'H-2240' or at least that's what it should be called, 'X-1800' is definately the power and not the cu in and I guess the 'X' is for experimental which is a departure from the normal designation system. Might need to consult an official list, sorry about the T46, I really didn't know what to do with it. It's redirecting to the Fairchild generic article now when it should be a red link to the engine but how can it be when there is an aircraft with the same name?! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason people here might doubt such statements about redistribution is because they wonder whether the author fully understands the implications. In some cases, when the author has found out that Wikipedia requires complete freedom for anyone (including for-profit entities) to reuse and alter the work, he realizes that he didn't want to go that far and issues a more explicit statement of what can be done. (In fact, if he were simply to add "Permission to freely distribute to Wikipedia", it might make the image ineligible, because it would imply that only Wikipedia, and not others, could use the image.) But as I said, this isn't my field of expertise, and it may be that I'm being too paranoid. Copyright certainly can be a pain in the ass. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You said it! PITA!! I just try to abide by the spirit of copyright with images and text, I don't think anyone understands the law properly and even if they did it's different in different countries just to make life easier. I have to laugh at poor quality images that say 'copyright, all rights reserved etc.', what's that all about? I release my pathetic efforts to Commons and many on Flickr are doing the same thankfully. Yep, wedding photos and very high quality other images might have commercial value, low resoloution photos of old, long gone engines and aircraft are in the 'won't earn a bean category'. Should stop there and improve another engine article, soap box, off! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Per Gunston's The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines, 4th EditionThe Development of Piston Aero Engines, 2nd Edition, X-1800 was the company's designation, and it was based on the expected power output; it's used in several online sources. Gunston lists the displacement as 2240 cu in. However,most sources online give XH-2600 as the alternate designation fro the X-1800, and I believe that was what the original article stated. Per thos sources, I do believe the X-1800 and the XH-2600 are the same engine, as there were only two of theis type that P&W worked on. I don't yet understand the discrepancy between the displacement given by Gunston, and the XH-2600 designation. Perhaps there is someting in a back issue of Flight that can clear this up. - BilCat (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Would the XH-2600 also be the H-3130 which was further enlarged to the H-3730 (both capacities)! Certainly needs looking at in some detail to clarify. Might be worth a look in Flight but the details are sketchy even on Brit experimentals about that time, worth a look. Time for bed, said Zebedee. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Per Gunston, the XL-3130 is the XH-3730! Still hightly confusing! The same source of your image above has on of the XH-3730, and it certainly looks like a different and slightly larger engine. Btw, if we can get the status of theose images cleared up, he has several more good images of other P&W engines on the same gallery page. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we need a 'whip round' to get a P&W specific reference book! There are some out there but I wouldn't know which one is best. We'll get there eventually. The image looks like it just needs an 'npd' template placed on it, stating the source and permission which is in the summary already? Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)12:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the Wright R-1820 is a single row, nine cylinder engine. Without looking I would think the capacities of some of those engines are not similar either. With so many engines out there we can afford to tighten the criteria on the similar engines list. I look for similar era, similar capacity, similar layout and similar number of cylinders. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So even you
When you delete other's edit, you keep in mind that the plot description is NOT needing of 'references', you should read the famous plot policies to see that
Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.
As for the uncohomprensible edits then it's your opinion. And nobody should remember that it's in the wikipedia interest to avoid to lost useful edits. Then you should discuss-or improve them, insthed to do like your friends and revert at will.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Stefano, even me. As a native English speaker I am afraid my assessment of your recent contributions is more than an opinion, it is a fact that your English is barely readable. We have tried to work with you in the past, even asking for your contributions to be placed on article talk pages where we could work on them. I speak and write reasonable German but I would not dream of contributing to the Wiki:de articles further than adding simple interwiki link code. Regards Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)09:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a fact too, dear mr.Nimbus, that your 'recent edits' are not related with movies.
So i have a direct question to you (and Ahunt, of course):
We have 3 millions articles in wiki.en, right? Do you understand this? 5 millions users, right?
Well. How to explain your revert in Robin and Marian within 1 hour since i wrote it?
Are nowhere interested in movies? What, suddently you came and revert something written by me? I rate this suspicius to say the least. And your revert, mr. Nimbus was justified with the lack of sources, that are not requested in the movie plots. And this alone (wrong) statement, NOT the spelling, was used as justification. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Stefano but I, like any other editor am entirely free to edit any Wikipedia article unless a restriction has been placed on them by ARBCOM to my knowledge or it is a complex template or protected article. It may surprise you that I do edit articles outside my usual field of aviation. I was alerted to your activity by your message on User:Ahunt's talk page (which I have on my watchlist). I don't feel that I have to justify my actions, ending this discussion now so that I can go back to more constructive activities. Regards Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)11:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's very interesting, will have a better read tomorrow, some useful info in there, thanks very much. The Flight archive is very useful and I'm glad that someone 'at the top' had the foresight to archive it online, wouldn't like to be the person who had to scan all the pages though!! Some weird and wonderful engines back then, you can sense the urgency that they were being developed. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi I've just reviewed and renominated Supermarine Spitfire so if you have the time it would be good to have help getting it sorted. I've been through it and although there is still more that could be written it meets the GA criteria as far as I can tell now Thruxton (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good to see that an uninvolved, neutral editor has nominated the article for GA. Some of the writing and paragraph structure is still quite loose and needs work. I also agree that the survivors need a stand alone article. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
When I removed the section, I wasn't really thinking about our projects previous discussions, but if you can find them and add a section about the avyear template, i think that will be fine. - TrevorMacInniscontribs04:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that is caused by a slow shutter speed and a fast prop! That is why I used that picture! Okay since you seem to thing it is okay I will post the box on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't add them to a category, as there is no category to add them to! We could have a sign-up page and link the word 'member' in the box to that page, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am thick, you can see who is using it by the transclusion link! Still think it would be useful to have a list of volunteers somewhere. Maybe we can advertise the optional use of this box at WT:AETF. I'm jus too democratic at times! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the transclusion link gives you the same as "What links here" for the box, so it does quickly allow you to check who has the box on their user page! If you want to make up a sign up page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Participants then put the link here and I'll add it to the user box! - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the movie quite well, but as Spitfire and I have it in a video and DVD version. Whatchneedtoknow? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Radio controlled devices
I think the category for most radio-controlled recreational devices (not trying to be insulting here) is one that would fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys. It is fairly frequently the case that a given WikiProject hasn't gotten around to tagging all the articles relevant to its subject, and that might be what happened here as well. John Carter (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we figured that in the aviation project as well but I'm sure the guys who contribute to the articles would disagree quite strongly! It's difficult to know what exactly to do with them, I know that it takes a lot of enthusiasm and help to start and maintain a new project. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
One option would be to create a subproject of Aviation which is also a subproject of Toys, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Radio Controlled Aircraft work group or something similar. If you were to want to try that, I think the best first step would be to either contact the people in the Aviation project and see if there was enough interest to start it there, or, alternately, make a proposal for such a group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals with notes added to the talk pages of relevant articles and see if there is enough interest generated that way. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am actually a member of a task force of the aircraft project (WP:AETF) which I helped set up around last December. At a push the aviation project could adopt the radio-controlled aircraft, glider and helicopter articles but I know that there was opposition to it before, might try again. This would still leave cars, boats and submarines out 'in the cold'. There are other modelling type articles like static scale plastic models etc. that need a home. Perhaps I will look through the edit histories to see if there are common editors as you suggest, who might be interested in starting a project. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are enough to make a subproject reasonable, and I would suggest a subproject because the guidelines only call for five active editors for one as opposed to ten for a separate project, let me know and I can try to help in the setup of the new group. That sort of thing is in general pretty much all I'm good for, but I am pretty good at that, if nothing else. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your entries and work, but I had to remove the items in the Level Up section. As per the rules, to qualify as a Level up, the articles must have a B-Class checklist to start with. There fore you get your .1 for adding the checklist in this edit but not the 5 points for going from Start to C-Class. In other word, the article really began as a C-class article, it just needed the checklist. Now that you have established the article as a C-class, you can get points for improving it to B-Class or higher. Stated another way, Level Up points are given for improving the article, not for improving the Class, if you get my meaning. I've expanded upun the rules to (hopefully) explain this a bit better. Thanks again. - TrevorMacInniscontribs21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's a fair cop! I did improve them while I was there BTW, substantially in most cases, the edit histories show it. I wouldn't have promoted them otherwise! Wondered about awarding points for adding infoboxes, maybe on next months comp? Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I did notice some improvements. If you believe you edited enough to affect a class, feel free to re-add it back with links. As for the infobox points, I have though of adding that in the next round, as one of the many backlogs that need clearing. - TrevorMacInniscontribs00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fussed though finding stub or start class articles with existing B class checklists is not easy. It looks to me like article creation is most profitable, assuming that the quality is acceptable, I try to produce start class articles at the very least. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In transcribing the scene with R. J. Mitchell and Sir Henry Royce, this is the conversation in the The First of the Few aka Spitfire (1942):
Royce: "I'm going to let you have an engine I've had in my head for some time. I've got a name for it– Merlin."
Michell: "Merlin?"
Royce: "A fellow in King Arthur's court who worked wonders. Now my engine and your plane are going to do just that."
This exchange would have to have taken place in 1933 prior to Royce's death that year. Mitchell did not begin work on the Type 300 (Spitfire) until 1934 but Rolls-Royce had begun development on the Type PV-12 (Merlin) by 1933. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
Thanks Bill, very interesting. I knew that Henry Royce died before the Merlin ran (and as the 'PV-12' at that), one of my books says that he died on the day that the last drawings for it were finished. I think this scene portrays a fictional meeting or if there was a meeting between the two this is probably not what was said. Also pretty sure that Royce would not have used that meaning after designing the Eagle, Hawk, Condor and Kestrel (which are generally other things with feathers!!!). If, hypothetically, this was used in the Merlin article how would it be referenced? Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's tricky to source a film, but it is sometimes given as a time code from the film, which is in this case, 1:01:10. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
Ooops! You're right. The book is "The Hardest Day", but I keep thinking that a source more directly related to the Merlin would be more appropriate. Sorry about that, it was 2 am my time and this rotten little head cold was keeping me awake. Will rectify cie asap! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No wonder I couldn't find it!! We do have to be very, very careful at this stage, anything new entered has to be 'bulletproof'. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 5 September 2009
(UTC)
Agreed, I was wrong about the source as well, so I have removed the statement - I know it's around here somewhere, but, as you say, this needs to be bulletproof! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm busy earning pennies at the moment, will have a look at the Dagger next week. As Jimbo says if it's unsourced remove it. Still leaves the possibly uncontentious statement about 16,000 feet which I think you added recently, just hope that it does not get questioned (the reviewers will be checking our talk pages to see how honest we are BTW!). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
11.15 pm and I have started work in the sandbox - I've altered some of the sentence structure detailing Hooker's improvements (underlined)and started describing the Merlin 45M's "cropped" impeller. Again, your advice is most welcome. BTW Have you got any details of the impeller sizes?? Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This gives 12.0" first stage, and 10.1" second stage for the Merlin/V1650 if that's of any use. Haven't come across anything else other than the cropped impeller being 9.5", but Gary is likely to have more authoritative info. Interesting work and a few good tweaks in the sandbox BTW. --RedSunset14:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks chaps, I'm not really fit to type at the moment, will have a better look at it all in a couple of days. Yes, I think I have the impeller sizes, tiny bit worried that we are expanding some sections longer than they need to be. Hopefully some independent editors will drop by at the peer review soon and give an indication either way. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I don't have the Glancey book; however I know where I can get hold of a book, Birth of a Spitfire, published during WW 2. This is all about Beaverbrook and the Spitfire fund - there is a table of the prices of the Spitfire airframe and engine plus all of the equipment. 'Tis mostly propaganda but the Spitfire costings are genuine. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be interesting information for both articles, my guess is probably an over estimate, it was based on a given airframe cost of £6,000 and an export cost of a complete aircraft at £12,000 and I think they got cheaper to produce as time went by. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)10:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, according to Mr Beckles the price of a Spitfire engine was...£2,000 0/-d, a propeller £350 0/-d, a "Sparkling Plug [sic]" was 8/-d. other costs (purely for interest) Petrol pipe 9/-d, header tank £20 0/-d (pp. 78-79). The assumption is that the price relates to a Merlin II or III. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Great! Do you have a full book title and page number? 'Sparkling plugs' would be a typo of sparking plug which is a term sadly fallen into disuse. I bought eight KLG new old stock plugs at £30 each last year, eight shillings is 40 pence so they are 75 times dearer than when they were manufactured, that would make a Merlin £150,000 today! A bargain! Would be nice to know what these engines are fetching with a Spitfire being in the £1 million plus mark. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Beckles, Gordon. Birth of a Spitfire: The Story of Beaverbook's Ministry and its First £10,000,000. London: Collins Clear-Type Press, 1941 pp.78-79.
Hmmm, a Merlin was £2,000, a Spitfire fuselage was £2,500, the wings £1,800 - this gives some idea of relative values. While googling "rolls-royce merlin restorations I came across this site: Northbrook College, Sussex I wonder if they could answer your question?
"Sparkling plugs" is a typo - elsewhere they are called sparking plugs. Incidentally, the book tells us that as of 3 September 1939 the Luftwaffe boasted some "20,000 machines, of which a generous estimate would apportion 3,500 as first-line...The Ju 88 was a poor affair, and the Messerschmitt 109 was absolutely no match for our own fighters." Did I mention there was a small amount of propaganda in the book? Minorhistorian (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I did briefly but I must apologise for not looking at it closely, I have been very busy on here and in the 'real world'! As the FA process has started I would rather not change anything at the moment as the current content has been checked and copy edited, the review page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 where points have been raised already although I think that I have fixed them. I visited the Shuttleworth Collection today by air (third time this year I think) and took 150 plus photographs (including the Merlin and small bits of it, including fishtail exhausts!). The restoration of Spitfire Vc AR501 is progressing slowly but steadily, they have yet to start on the wings and are finding corrosion in most areas. I joined in briefly with helping to reskin the lower starboard tailplane (which is indeed held on with woodscrews as the manual says!) and almost talked myself into a job over there. The guys did not take kindly to my comment of 'nearly finished then?!' Would love to join in, maybe in the future. I will try to upload the photos to Commons but it all takes time and some care. Sorry if I'm being a 'mother hen' with the Merlin at the moment, once it's done one way or the other I will have a lie down! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem; the reason I'm using a sandbox is to avoid altering the article while the review is underway. I am seething with jealousy with the casual way you mention visiting the Shuttleworth Collection. Should I try a few jaffa cakes to compensate? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
They don't travel well! I think there are also Jaffa bars, if I open a tube of Jaffas I don't stop! I have been a very frequent visitor to Old Warden since the late 1960s, it has lost some of its magic atmosphere IMO due to commercialisation and improvements to the facilities (shop/restaurant) which were very necessary, maintaining vintage aeroplanes is a costly affair. My father's ashes are buried on the airfield and he has a brass plaque at the entrance gate that I maintain. Most of the aeroplanes are unnaturally shiny, I always liked AR 501 as it always looked like it had been in a war (which it had)! Truth is that I would like to fly some of the exhibits, I probably have the experience and hours but it seems to be the domain of graduated test pilots, to be fair I've never enquired, maybe I should. They bought a Piper Cub recently to tow the gliders and we helped with training the pilots in the art of three dimensional 'water skiiing'! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
