Talk:Wright R-790 Whirlwind

Displacement

...is actually closer to 787 than to 788 - 787.263. 68.148.93.15 (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's what you get when you calculate the displacement from the given bore and stroke. But that assumes that bore and stroke are perfectly accurate measurements, ignoring the possibility that they might be a tiny bit bigger than quoted and that displacement might have been measured separately. An increase of as little as 0.002 inches in stroke or just 0.0007 inches in bore would raise the displacement from your calculated value to 787.5, which would round up to 788. Issues like this are one reason why Wikipedia prefers to quote specifications from reliable sources rather than simply calculating them, and the FAA's Type Certificate Data Sheet for this engine gives its displacement as 788 cu in. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuel Consumption?

I'm a little surprised that this article doesn't give the engine's fuel consumption in gallons or pounds per hour - it's a pretty basic engine spec. But on the whole I find the article to be pretty good - informative and useful.108.68.36.85 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@108.68.36.85 I totally agree with that criticism 97.127.13.140 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Fuel consumption of aircraft engines varies wildly depending on aircraft type and configuration (biplane/monoplane), density altitude, all up weight and power/mixture settings. It is not even mentioned in many flight manuals, the pilot learns the fuel consumption from experience. A source often used for aircraft engine specifications is the FAA or EASA Type Data Certificate, fuel consumption is not listed there either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)