Jump to content

Talk:Pratt & Whitney/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pratt & Whitney

Visit the history section at www.prattandwhitney.com

They have a copy of the book "Accuracy for Seventy Years 1860 - 1930" available for download at the bottom of the history page.

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft was founded by Frederick Rentschler

Pratt & Whitney, the jet engine manufacturer was founded by Frederick Rentschler in 1925. See here:

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/about_history.asp

He got funding from "Pratt & Whitney" (the well known machine tool maker which started in 1860) and was allowed to use their name. Also see here:

http://www.prattandwhitney.com/history.htm

and here for history pictures:

http://www.prattandwhitney.com/pratt_whitney_history_pic1.htm


P&W / PWC

Both the P&W and PWC pages are somewhat vague as to what defines a "small" aircraft engine. Someone who is much more familiar with the two companies should probably help to sort this out. For instance, User:GreatWhiteNortherner pointed out to me that the PT-6 is actually made by PWC. How small is "small," though? Does PWC actually manufacture any turbofans, or do they make turboprops exclusively?

First of all, PWC is NOT the Canadian branch plant of P&W. The two companies are siblings, not parent and child. Both companies report to their common parent, United Technologies. PWC does all its own R&D, marketing, etc. and within its own sector is markedly more successful than its American sibling (waves Canadian flag).
PWC produces both both turbofans and turboprops. For example, its new PW600 [1] comes in both flavours. GreatWhiteNortherner 04:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
For the record, both the P&W and PWC websites claim that PWC is a division of PW. This may not always have been so, but it is now. (Waves American flag! :P ) I tend to believe the companies themselves over some misguided patriot with no sources to back up his claims. I changed both articles awhile back to reflect this, but never stated it.
As far as turbofans go, PWC seems to produce them up to somewhere around 15,000-20,000 pounds thrust. A large turbofan is certainly the 90,000+ pounds thrust behemoths that PW makes. Also, the current PWC page on the PW600 mentions nothing about it being a turboprop/shaft, just a turbofan. However, it may well be related to one of PWC's turboprop/shaft engines. - BillCJ (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

P&W History

I found some great historical information here:

http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v027n1/p0162-p0172.pdf

Page 166 explains how the aircraft company was started.

Marine Service

The Hamilton class (378') of Coast Guard cutters included pairs of FT4A-6s to attain 29 knots for "sprint" rescue or ASW, although operations at Navy fleet speed requires extended turbine operation (normal running is on Fairbanks-Morse diesels, cruising at 18 knots). These engines are said to be adapted from a 1950s era design used on the 707 [[2]], and engineers' legend is if these ships had been made fifty feet longer they could have achieved five to ten additional knots with the power available. A dozen of these ships were built mid-60s to early 70s and all remain in service today (despite neither engine remaining in manufacture). I think this is noteworthy, but don't know where best to fit it into the article. Jeffreykopp 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Involvement in motorsport

I recently added information to this article regarding the use of Pratt & Whitney engines in top-line motorsport (USAC racing and Formula 1). The information has twice been removed by 69.0.125.101. The second time, 69.0.125.101 suggested that the motorsport information belongs in the "History" section. With respect, I disagree; I think the History section neatly describes the origins and development of the company, and that the motorsport information is better described in a separate section. I'd be interested in the views of others. -- DH85868993 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to check the talk page before editing. Added back in as a subheading under history; best of both worlds, as it is techinically history now? Marimvibe 09:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually seeing it in the article, it looks OK. Thanks, Marimvibe. DH85868993 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

P&W Tool as a seperate article?

It seems to me like the P&W tool company should have its own article; could just cut the extra information from this article and make a new one. The only real significance is the original funding and factory space, and the origin of the name. Marimvibe (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like just 2 paragraphs here are specific to P&W Machine Tool. Doesn't seem like enough for a separate article. But if you have sources for more info go for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Concur, at least until we get better sources. As a small company, PWMTC probably gets better coverage being parked in with the big company than on their own article, so they probably don't mind being in with the bigger upstart! - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The original P&W is definitely notable as a well-known machine tool firm in the period of 1860-1920, which period is very interesting from a history of technology perspective. So it definitely deserves more WP coverage eventually, when any of us gets around to it. I agree that right now there's not enough info here to split them up into separate articles (such as original P&W, P&W Aircraft, and P&W Measurement Systems), but eventually there could be. — ¾-10 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: See #Article split below. — ¾-10 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

P&W Engines Infobox?

Does anyone else think it would be more useful to just have an infobox that lists engine models, instead of having a huge list in the article? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am employed by P&W (engines) so I have a dog in this hunt, but ... seeing as how P&W revenue dwarfs the child of the original P&W (P&W Measurement), this article should primarily focus on the engine company with only a passing reference to the origin of its name. As such, the logo shown should be the P&W Dependable Engine Eagle. 02sbxstr (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The PWMTC logo is in the history section, which covers all three companies. The logo in the Infobox appears to be a current PW-UTC logo. If you can get us a P&W Dependable Engine Eagle logo, preferably one released by the PR dept for WP's use, I'll be happy to add it to the history section, along with the other logo. There will probably be a separate article for PWMTC someday, but someone has to write it first! - BillCJ (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Both logos have been used together by P&W (engines). See: http://www.prattandwhitney.com/pw-1960ad.jpg Stellydn (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that ad specifically addresses the history the PWs share. Without the mention of PWMTC, doubt they'd be used together. I am with BillCJ on this one, though. Marimvibe (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marimvibe, I also agree with BillCJ. PWMS is the only surviving part of PWMTC and I only meant to say that both logos had been used together in the past. Stellydn (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the current logo in the info block look different from the logo on P&W's website? The family UTC "iris" logo should be separating at the 2-o-clock position, not fused as currently shown in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.10.8 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


As an employee, I have to interject that the logo on Wikipedia is the incorrect logo. Please see this header for an example of the correct corporate logo: http://www.pw.utc.com/StaticFiles/Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20New/General%20Items/Header,%20Footer/static%20Files/Images/header_logo.jpg The "iris/gear" round icon in the current Wikipedia post is incorrectly drawn. The fingers gradually separate, whereas in the current Wikipedia logo, they are equally joined, which is incorrect. With proper credentials, I can possibly get an official logo for the article. Without insufficient response to this, I'll need to notify our legal dept. of the use of an inappropriate corporate logo. Thanks, Johnb300m (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volunteer response team details how to contact a volunteer on Wikipedia to file an OTRS ticket, which will register the permission from your company to use the correct logo, with a a usage license chosen by your company. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Official corporate business unit logo has been attained and updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnb300m (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 February \2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Commons is probably going to require that some proof of the license and relaese be provided. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2-8-2011, Received permission from PW Marketing. They are ok with the encyclopedic use of the logo.

Article split

I recently purchased some books on aircraft engines, and have been creating or expanding articles on aircraft engine companies.Along with this, I've been splitting out companies or divisions that were invovled in areas other than aircraft engines (Garrett turbochargers and Continental Motors automobile engiens so far). We've been kicking around splitting off "Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool Company" and "Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems" for some time now, and I'm about ready to start on the new article. I intedn for it to be at Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems, and it will cover the history of the companies from 1860-present, with a brief mention of PW AIrcraft's start. After thatt, I'll add some more info here, and to PWC, on the aircraft engine companies. - BillCJ (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started the new article at Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems. I will finish the Lead tomorrow. Comments are welcome on the new page's talk page. Also, I don't know what project the ane article should be under. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi BillCJ—Nice to see progress moving ahead on the split. Regarding a project tag for the new article, I added {{metalworking}}. Of course, the company today is about metrology in general and much more than just metalworking, but certainly metalworking was its raison d'être for many decades. Feel free, anyone, to add other project tags as well. I also added Category:Machine tool builders to the article. — ¾-10 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and the additions. I've got a couple of non-company sources to add to the article, which I'll try to get to in the next few days. These are from aviation books that I have. It would be good to have some media sources on the company, both national and local, but I've not taken the time to look as yet. Since this is a fairly obscure company, notability might become an issue, and though I think it's relationship to PW/UTC makes it notable enough, some other sources would be good too. - BillCJ (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
True. To that end, I added Roe 1916 pp 173-185 as something that we can point to if the notability nazis try to delete the article. — ¾-10 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Too clean?

The article seems to be 100% positive. Can somebody please do some research whether this is accurate? Have there ever been scandals? Environmental pollution? Union coercion? Questionable weapon deals?

To my knowledge, every major industrial company has had some of those.

Right now the article reads like a P&W advertising pamphlet.--91.37.249.55 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, 1. you have to find sources that discuss these, and 2. you have to weave them into the article text. It is not kosher to start "criticism" sections (and if you do see them, POV tag them) - good and bad news must be in bed with each other. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New additions

While many of the new additions are helpful, there is too much digression obout minor points. SOme of this background info could be moved to Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems or Frederick Rentschler, but some just needs to be trimmed/removed. Also, there seems to be a digression about P&W in WWII right in the middle of the section about PWAC's founding, which is confusing, and none of which would have been known circa 1925! It's possible some of this refers to Wright, especially the glut of engines available, which is WWI, not WW2. I may try to redo this on my own using my own sources as a guide, as I don't have access to the main source right now. ANy help from the contributor in sorting this out would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi BilCat! I don't follow very well. I think you're looking at the entire "History" section as being only about the founding years, whereas I'm looking at it as a timeline of the company's history, moving through each decade in sequence, all the way up to the present. If you look at it from that perspective, you see that the first paragraph is about the 1920s, then in succeeding paragraphs we move into the 1930s, then WWII, then the 1950s and 1960s, then the 1970s. We could add subheads by decade if you want. In fact, I will go add those, and they can be removed later if people don't go for it. Regarding the level of detail, I know others might feel differently, but I just would hate to remove any detail that's there, just to make the article shorter. That just goes against the grain of my Wikipedian philosophy, which leans to the inclusionism- incrementalism-eventualism-structurism spectrum. Regarding the very beginning in the 1920s, there's no way to talk about it without mentioning the P&W machine tool business. The connection to Niles Bement Pond and the old P&W, as well as to Wright Aeronautical, through Edward A. Deeds and through Rentschler and Mead (who were Wright Aeronautical people before launching their own startup) is simply a major part of the story of the P&W Aircraft Company's founding. An analogy would be trying to talk about the beginnings of GM (well, not the infancy, but the childhood and adolescence) without talking about the du Pont corporation. You have to mention both within the same article when you discuss those earliest years of the newly founded company; even though "there's a separate article for du Pont information to go in." Yeah, true, but you can't describe the events of those years without mentioning both as they fit into the story. Let's reassess after the subheads are added. Thanks, — ¾-10 16:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: The mention of "the war" in the first paragraph is all referring to the Great War, which had just happened a few years back. Maybe this was the root of your discomfort? You had taken this mention to refer to WWII? I clarified it. Thanks. — ¾-10 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, it was confusing! It's not so much the level of detail that I found troublesome, but the confusing digression. I realize now the text about post-war is talking about the original P&W, and that is what is confusing. More so as it's all in one big paragraph, and none of this info is at Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems, which covers the original company. While I've left tht part alone for now, I also moved some of the info on United Aircraft itself, particularly the change to UTC, to the new article, and that could use some sourcing and fleshing out as well. It really had nothing to do with P&W itself. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I follow you better now. You're looking to better separate P&W itself from United Aircraft in general. That's a good idea. I'm glad you agree that UA needs its own article. Up till now it has just been redirecting to United Technologies Corporation. Which is OK, but I'm glad to see you spinning it off because the level of detail it deserves would probably be purged from UTC as too long and boring for most people's tastes. This refers to stuff like what you removed in this edit. Since UA will be its own article now, I humbly suggest that almost all the content currently in the Pratt & Whitney > History section be moved to the UA article. And just a little blurb left here in WP: Summary style fashion. Never mind, I just checked out what you're doing over at United Aircraft, and it looks like you're totally on the right track. Talk to you soon. — ¾-10 16:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{ec}} Also, the whole parenthetical explanation on "planned obselesence" is too much detial here. I understand that your trying to flesh out the history, but all that about P&WMT needs to be said in one consice sentence, not several rambling sentences. (I'm coming at this from an editorial point of view, especially readability. I glanced at structurism, and this sentence jumped out: "Combining too much information in a single article discourages users from forging ahead with more detail and new ways of looking at the topic at hand." I think that is the key problem here: Too much info, and not enough structure in the section itself. It talks about way too many things all at once (Rentschler, Wright Aeronautical, Deeds, "Ohioan of the early aviation industry (infused by the influence of the Wrights)", Gordon Rentschler, Niles Bement Pond, Niles Bement Pond, Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool!) You even stated in one of your edit summaries: "Needed to explain this more clearly. One problem is that it's a sidebar from the P&W Aircraft Co storyline. But if I can move it later to a more appropriate place, I will." That's why I began by saying it might be better off at Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems. To be clear, I never meant removing the content altogether, just finding a more approriate article for the detail. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I'm BillCJ from our conversations above. I changed my username, but not every signature. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're totally right, thanks. Looking back, I can see that essentially what happened is that I captured all the relevant info in a sort of whirlwind first draft, and didn't know at the time where to go with it in terms of refining the structure. Now what's happening is that, with a fresh editorial eye, you're figuring out how to structure it better, which includes moving various pieces to different articles, but in a way that doesn't lose the connections. I think the lack of a dedicated UA article stymied my structure earlier. Anyway, have at it—you're clearly on the right track. I'm sure I'll be able to add fleshing out or inline cites in spots once this major structuring step is done. Thanks for your hard work. I'm glad to see multiple contributors interested in this content development effort. — ¾-10 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pratt & Whitney. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pratt_%26_Whitney/Archive_1&oldid=1169182709"