![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Since we have the power/weight ratio of batteries and fuel cells, it would be interesting to compare this with petrol and diesel fuels, too. Also could add other common forms of transport such as motorbikes, trains, boats. Milliondead ( talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of these could be also applied to cars.
Is square of the square a typo? If not, we can call it fourth power. Patrick 01:21 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not so familiar with this term but let me ask. Is it correct that "power loading = weight / power"? (I found this on D.P.Raymer's "Aircraft Design") If so, it seems to me better to clarify this point. - Marsian // talk 14:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
According to russian wikipedia charachteristics of this plane are understated. It weights a tonn less and produces more thrust with the new engine.
The section about "in an aircraft it's more critical than in any other vehicle" could reworded a bit. As far as I can tell, much of the information there applies to other vehicles as well... "power-to-weight greatly affects top speed... if two engines produce the same power, the lighter one will produce a better car". The basic premise isn't incorrect, but some of the explanations don't seem to clearly differentiate aircraft from other vehicles. -- Interiot 13:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we go neculer with aircraft using less fuel. Or can we use the sun to harness the power for flight —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.210.39 ( talk) 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Can we go neculer with aircraft using less fuel. Or can we use the sun to harness the power for flight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.210.39 ( talk) 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
If we're going to have a table to give people ideas of typical values, anyone else think it'd be more useful to have the power/weight ratio of the car rather than just an engine. Automotive mags often write about power/weight ratios of cars- I haven't seen them talk about it in reference to just the engine much. Also, anyone else think a sampling of typical cars is more informative than a bunch of exotic high-powered cars? Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Under the heading "Notable low marginal power", the tables list power-to-weight ratio in lb/hp. This should be hp/lb —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
148.163.178.11 (
talk)
22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
In the "Electric Motors/Electromotive Generators" section, the values in the table for the Prius 2004 are wrong. Just by intuition there's no way the Prius 2004 motor mass is 183 kg. Go to the link at http://www.magnets.bham.ac.uk/documents/Jewell.pdf. "Total active mass = 36.3kg; Power density = 1.37kW/kg" I'm too lazy to figure out how to edit the table, so somebody please fix it. 69.226.238.225 ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) RWconsult
Added some more cars to the list. More mainstream cars should make the comparisons more valid to most users. Also added the weights and powers for additional info. Keppelk ( talk) 11:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Ultima GTR 720 makes 720 bhp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.26.101 ( talk) 03:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of torque, I know the industry standard (For motor vehicles at least) is power-to-weight ratio, but torque-to-weight ratio is at least as relevant. For example from the article:
Turbocharged V-8 diesel engine Power to weight ratio: 0.25 hp/lb / 410 W/kg Total Power Output: 250 hp / 186 kW
So the peak power is respectable but it isn't amazing for a V8, but being a) turbo charged, b) V8 and c) diesel, I'd hazard a guess that the torque is going to be quite impressive (I know this is probably a fictional engine and there are many other factors, but I'm grossly generalising here). It may even have a higher peak torque than the F1 car:
BMW P84/5 2005 (Formula 1) Power to weight ratio: 4.6 hp/lb / 7.5 kW/kg Total Power Output: 925 hp / 690 kW
Also no mention of power curves is made, for example a V8 may have a very shallow power curve but stays above 150 kW for half of it with a peak of 200 kW, but it will have a worse power-to-weight ratio of a same weight 4 cylinder with a large turbo, sharp peak power of 250kW and average power of say 50kW.
Anyway, sorry about the rant, my point is that I don't think this article mentions the other factors enough such as power curve, torque curve and even max rpm. Hullo exclamation mark ( talk) 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hullo, yes, and for good reason. Power is torque * rpm. Torque is independent of power. With gears you can get as much torque as you want from any power. -Jason Arthur Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.140.87 ( talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Power-to-weight ratio is commonly given in bhp/tonne or kW/tonne... Hence power divided by weight.
The tables in this article appear to quote weight-to-power ratios. Is this deliberate or has someone taken it upon themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 ( talk) 11:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the table heading for 'Sports and Flight Vehicles' to read 'Sports vehicles and Aircraft', though really they need to be in separate tables. Can someone with the appropriate know-how do this?
I'm also unsure about the power specified for the Spitfire and Bf-109: these look like mid-war figures, not the figures for the prototypes as given. This needs confirmation elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Two problems with the jet engines in the power/weight table:
1) The engines (GE CF6-80C2 and GE90-115B) should not be referred to as "Brayton" jet engines. Just call them by the actual given name, e.g. GE90-115B turbofan. Drop the obscure, pedantic eponym.
2) The output of a jet engine is measured in thrust (units of force), not power (force*distance/time).
If you look up the specs for any jet engine, the output will be given in lbf. or N. You cannot arbitrarily convert the thrust produced by a jet engine (or rocket engine) into horsepower or watts. Because the power output of a jet engine cannot be readily determined, but the thrust can easily be measured, the performance of a jet engine is given by thrust/weight, not power/weight. It is nonsensical to say that the GE90-115B produces 85,000 horsepower. A jet engine on a test stand, producing the maximum rated thrust, 513kN in the case of the GE90-115B, is producing no power because it is stationary. Zero power. When the airplane is in motion, then the engines are producing power, and it is theoretically possible to calculate the power, but you would have to somehow already know the thrust required for the given airspeed.
157.182.105.1 (
talk)
02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"Power" in this context refers to shaft power. So for a turbofan engine, that would be the shaft power available to the fan, torque times angular velocity in radians. That is non-zero even when the engine is bolted to a test stand. It is true that when looking at the larger system, the net mechanical power produced is zero as long as the test stand doesn't move, but this is irrelevant pedantry. The various diesel, electric and pneumatic motors listed on this page also produce zero power when spinning against a brake on a test stand, but their specifications show shaft power.-- Yannick ( talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Consider adding electric car by General Motors – EV1. It's ratio equals 97.86 bhp/ton [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.66.28 ( talk) 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont know what engineer wannabe wrote this table but its COMPLETE nonsense. Its obviously calculated by this simple formula : Power = (Engine Thrust in Newtons) x (Aircraft Mach number) x 1236 / 3.6 (km/h to m/s conversion).
1-In engine specifications, the engine thrust is stated as "uninstalled thrust". As soon as it is installed into airframe, it wont be giving its uninstalled thrust.
2-Even more importantly, intake design dictates how dynamic thrust of engines will be. A fixed inlet optimized for transonic regime wont be giving ANY thrust supersonic, no matter how powerful engine is(for example Su-25), but a optimized variable inlet can give even higher than uninstalled thrust at high supersonic speeds. To compare, a MiG-25 with 200kN total thrust 0.55 T/W, and a draggy airframe can reach M2.83 with 4 missiles, but a clean F-15C with 220kN total thrust, twice T/W and less draggy/lighter airframe cant. In short, its wrong to assume engine gives the same thrust at all speeds.
3-Engine thrust is also dependent on altitude, so its also wrong to assume sea level static thrust applies to all altitudes. (Obviously most aircraft reach their top speeds at 20000+ feet)
4-Mach number also changes with air altiude, so multiplying with 1236 is also wrong.
Most of these goes for rockets (space shuttle etc). In that case, thrust depends on altiude, airspeed, compressibility and nozzle design point. So unless anyone objects, I will be deleting all these aircraft relates bullshit from the article. Its a embarassing table for a site calles itself encyclopedia. Andraxxus ( talk) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ships should be included in this article, as they are the most efficient movers of cargo, shown by the very low Power-to-weight ratio. I could not find references for the mass of an empty functional ship, but hopefully others have better luck. TGCP ( talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Power-to-weight ratio. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Power-to-weight ratio. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 28 external links on Power-to-weight ratio. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ge90-115b.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/products{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nesscap.com/data_nesscap/spec_sheets/Spec%2009.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/BlueGen_Brochure%28ENG_GER%29_Mar-09.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/TransTechnical.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.suntech-power.com/images/stories/2010_datasheets/EN/suntech_hiperforma_udm_en.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://asmcommunity.asminternational.org/vgn-ext-templating/views/ASM/OpenDocument.jsp?vcmid=b6b1a538b5c81210VgnVCM100000621e010aRCRDWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I checked the reference, there was no weight and the power was just 850 bhp. I did not find anything about 1400 bhp org weight in Arrows A10 or BMW M12. -- Fisch4Fun ( talk) 06:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the C/12 rating for the Toshiba SciB cell. The math was wrong (50A at 2.4V is 120 W, not 600W), and the cited source doesn't mention a 50A discharge at all. What it does mention is charging at 50A:
More than 90 percent of the SCiBTM cell capacity can be charged in just 5 minutes using a large charging current (max. 50A).
Dominik Honnef ( talk) 20:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is now 78 pages long and has ~500 refs in it. How about we split the examples into another article for people who want to see the details and leave this article to explain the definition and interpretation of the concept? Lfstevens ( talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, the section on electric motors appears poorly sourced and unreliable. When the links are followed, they don't go to specific product pages and the products that are there don't seem to match the claimed results for H3X and Integral. I was trying to verify claims and power levels and weights didn't seem to match up let alone Power/Weight ratios. Perhaps an Editor should assess wether this is [UNRELIABLE] and wether it should remain in the article? Patbahn ( talk) 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
What's the point of the lists? I do not think it passes WP:NLIST. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Remove any mention of any athletic achievement since most professional, if not all, cyclists are 'doped up to the eyeballs' and does not accurately portray their power but how well their team doctor can concoct something 'good' and undetectable to enbale them to cheat. The issue is that the cyclist mentioned was caught doping with asthma medication and collapsed from excessive use. 210.84.5.219 ( talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)