This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I have a print-out that the HES (Kimball) sent me that goes into a lot more depth on the Hypers. I'll dig it up and add a lot more stuff to this article over the next few days. In the meantime, does anyone know if we can use the image on the USAF Museum page? It states it was made by the USAF, that means we can use it, right? Maury 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Sometime in the last year or two they changed their policy and all photos now used on the site are from the public domain. See here for full details. --Rlandmann 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Egggcelent... Maury 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The engine is properly identified as the Continental IV-1430, and that article refers to this page. There is no engine identified as Continental I-1430. With this move, any references to Continental I-1430 will be redirected to Continental IV-1430. Reference is "American Secret Pusher Fighters of World War II, Balzer, Gerald H., Specialty Press, 2008. 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Question I'm confused. How many different engines are we talking about here, one or two? Are there engines called IV-1430 and V-1430, but not one called I-1430? I'm ready to carry out this move requests, but I need to clarify which pages should redirect where. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for causing the confusion. Here is my understanding of what I think the misunderstanding is all about: Every book I have read about this engine say about the same thing, and that the engine in its first design called for an opposed piston engine of 12 cylinders of 1430 cubic inches. The USAAC then changed its mind and wanted the configuration as an upright Vee configured engine. And the final change was to be an inverted Vee engine. The only one actually built was the last one, and it was called the IV-1430. 23 engines were built, and only three remain. The private owner who purchased the engine says it has a data plate with I-1430-11 on it, but he consistently calls the engine an "IV-1430". Now for the confusion. The IV-1430 on display at the National Museum of the US Air Force identifies the engine as an Continental I-1430-9 Hyper . On their fact sheet the wording has this: "In 1943 the 1,600-hp IV-1430 engine, later redesignated the XI-1430, was tested extensively in the Lockheed XP-49". I have sent an inquiry there to clarify what the data plate says on their engine.
Here is my intention for the renaming: The existing article is "Continental I-1430", and it is fairly well along. The "Continental IV-1430" article is a redirect to the existing I-1430 page. What I would like to do is swap the names, that way the I-1430 article becomes a redirect that points to the IV-1430 article. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to Continental IV-1430, but open to Continental XI-1430. The NMUSAF calle it the "I-4130". There was some designation flux, but "I" was the final designation used for inverted-vee engines, and it's probably best to ise that instead of "IV". On WPAIR, we generally label aircrat and engines that were only experimental with the "X" in the designation, but that's a style preference, not a mandate. The other move requested is just redirect maintence, as the proposer is still learning the ropes of WP naming protocol, which can be very confusing. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bilcat. Although the engine in question was designated as IV-1430 for 90%+ of its life, it was indeed designated as XI-1430 when it was retired. But then, the P-38 and P-51 are remembered as such...... Regards, Buster40004 Talk 01:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there weren't over 10,000 of the engines produced under the old desingation! That figgures in just a little bit. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have gone through the article and have changed text to reflect the references that I have added. I have at lest one reference per paragraph, and have used four books, an article at the enginehistory.org web site and the National Museum of the USAF. I have removed the 'needref' template. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a citeable source for the bore and stroke? The ones in the article give only 1,090 cuin, not the 1,430 shown. True figures are 5.0 x 5.5, NOT 5 x 4 5/8, but I can't find where I got those numbers. AMCKen (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All three dimensions have the same value, this is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.196.199 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section seems to promote the notion that high output per displacement is the measure of aircraft engine performance. Actually the ratios of power to weight and of specific fuel consumption (power/pound of fuel) is much more important and those figures were not given in the comparison to other engines. To conclude that the I 1430 "would have been a winner" based on hp/cid figures is a gross assumption. Also consideration of the Allison V-1710 would show that despite lower hp/cid ratings it had a higher hp/pound than the Merlin and likely the I-1430. Of course, without the figures on the I-1430 we don't know. Another factor is power at altitude which is affected largely by the amount of development work done on the engine. This was where the Merlin shined and the Allison fell down due too its reliance on poorly refined turbo-supercharging, an immature technology at the time.
At any rate there was too many conclusions based on too few facts in this section which needs to be rewritten.Corumplex (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
