Talk:Bristol Centaurus

message: This page states that the Centaurus engine was used in the Bristol Britannia,but surely this is incorrect as this was a turbo prop airliner and not piston engined.
Regards
Eric O'Brien
e-mail <removed>
----
IIRC, the Britannia was originally intended to use the Centaurus as a fall-back if the Proteus development should prove unsuccessful. 
The Britannia was also later intended to use the Bristol Orion but that engine was later cancelled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village Pump:
On the page located at: http://www.fact-index.com/b/br/bristol_centaurus.html, it says:
"Other piston engines of this size were developed by both Pratt and Whitney and Wright, but neither could be considered as successful during the war."
This is a foolish and incorrect statement.  The B-17, B-24, and B29 were all powered by Wright radial engines.  The P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, B-26 Marauder, and A-26 Invader were all powered by Pratt & Whitney Radials.  These engines, especially the Pratt & Whitney, were highly successful during WWII, flying hundreds of thousands of combat sorites.  The Centaraurus on the other hand, which the article implies was successful, NEVER SAW A SINGLE COMBAT SORTIE IN WWII!
Wade (RG_Lunatic@cox.net)
REf. comments by "Wade" I understand that The P&W engined B17 etc and Wright engined P47 etc did not see combat using P&W R4360 Wasp Major or Wright Cyclone R2600. In fact no WW2 aircraft saw combat using these engine types.
Re the above.  The closest equivalent from America would be the Wright R3350 which was indeed the cause of many B29 losses due to fires. Britain never produced a successful airframe which could have done the Centaurus justice.
:Wade, you seem to have confused several issues. For one, the article states that the large P&W and Wright engines were not successful. The successful designs you refer to are different engines, with the exception of the B-29. And in that case, on the B-29 (and B-32), the Wright engine was famous for bursting into flame on takeoff and led to many hull losses and deaths. No-one could consider that a "success". You then go on to claim that the "Centaraurus" [sic] "NEVER SAW A SINGLE COMBAT SORTIE IN WWII". This is, of course, wrong. The Centaurus flew a number of missions on the Warwick GR.Mk II, Mk III and Mk V, of which several hundred were built and saw active service. The only reason the Tempest Mk V didn't see combat is that they were on-route to Tiger Force when the war ended. Maury 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that the R-3350 was not a success, either in general or when being compared to the Centaurus, is laughable, as is the (unsourced) notion that the Centaurus was always this great engine just waiting for the right airframe to come along and sweep it off its feet. And her prince finally showed up in the Warwick! Huh? Yes, I'm sure that the RAF was so enamored with the utter flawlessness of the Napier Sabre that they waited until the war was almost over before slapping a Centaurus onto a Tempest. The fact is, like the R-3350, the Centaurus had its share of teething problems and, also like the R-3350, these were worked out in the end. END COMMUNICATION!--172.190.70.47 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erronous information 

message: This engine has a number of systems and controls that improved it usefullness. The fuel control unit replaced the carb and gave the engine better fuel flows and adjustment for altitude. the throttle linkage also set the propeller RPM and the Ignition advance. In current usages the engine has been operated at higher boost settings with sucess. However the enging has little tolerance for over reving or netural thrust settings. The master rod bearings fail in these cases. Mike Nixon75.38.66.114 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be fair to compare this system with the one on the BWM 801 in the Fw 190? Maury 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Having built a mechanical computer at one time in my life, I debate the difference between "mechanical computer" and "interconnected linkages". Maury 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  experiences with the engine 

message: Substituted at 10:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bristol Centaurus. 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/20090615075917/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/operations-and-support/establishments/naval-bases-and-air-stations/rnas-yeovilton/royal-navy-historic-flight/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/establishments/naval-bases-and-air-stations/rnas-yeovilton/royal-navy-historic-flight/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Applications section, it lists the Short Solent. Following the link, the Short Solent page never mentions the 18-cylinder Centaurus as it's power plants. It only shows the 14-cylinder Hercules as it's power plants. Netweezurd (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I have checked the source and the Solent 1 to 4 used the Bristol Hercules, the applications section was added in this 2007 edit without a source. The source that covers the section now was added later and the Solent must have been overlooked. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Short Solent