Talk:Pratt & Whitney

Aviation: Aircraft / Engines Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Connecticut C‑class Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually seeing it in the article, it looks OK. Thanks, Marimvibe. DH85868993 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update: See #Article split below. — ¾-10 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now that one exists at Template:P&W aeroengines, we should merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate P&W Logo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How do I go about getting someone in contact with the company? I read some of the OTRS info and tried looking through "contact us." But everything seemed very criptic in trying to contact someone at Commons. Isn't there a straightforward way of emailing someone on the volunteer team that deals with graphics? Thanks.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]