Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Silver State

FYI Folks, with the recent and dramatic shut down of Silver State Helicopters some one may want to keep an eye on the article. A lot of edits have been happening since Sunday --Trashbag (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking for comments on AH-1Z user article

Please take a look at User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper and let us know what you think. It is close to be moved to main space (regular article) and we would like to know what it is lacking first. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you want comments here or in the article discussion? MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I was going to check both places. But the article talk page would be better. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The user space article seems to be in fair shape. Should be OK to move to main space. Check it out... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ moved the article to main space at AH-1Z Viper. Take a look. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Piasecki

FYI: Frank Piasecki passed away yesterday. His article could use quite a bit of improvement since he was such a huge contributer to tandem rotor helicopters. I'll add in as much as I can but any help would be appreciated. --Trashbag (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RAH-66

I'm adding some background info on the RAH-66 Comanche. I have one book (Frawley Int. Direct. of Military a/c) that briefly describes how the requirement came to be in the late 1980s and some history in the 1990s. I'll add what I can. If someone has source(s) with more info, please add what you can. Thanks.

Also, add/update articles to the {{WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft}} template that need help. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let me add something. Comanche was screwed up because they gave it unachieveable requirements from Day One, and it never got better after that. They spent millions depriving other important R&D works to fund the doomed program. Nuff said. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter peer review

Helicopter has been resubmitted for peer review. I am requesting comments at WP:Aviation's Peer review page. Any help to move this article along is appreciated. --Born2flie (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#New C-class rating and another update to the project banner for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Rotorcraft

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! Nine whole articles selected. Guess we need to get to work. --Born2flie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We can make them better. That might help with the hit counts used their rankings but not much I think... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand/clean up work

Take a look at the {{WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft}} template. Help with article where you can. Add other articles needing help. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AH-56 Cheyenne

User:Born2flie and I are working on AH-56 Cheyenne sandbox. I've been adding text mainly to the Design phase section using a WarbirdTech book as a reference. Some review to make sure what's written is clear and understandable would be help. Thanks for any help. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is has made good progress and is in good shape. Still trying to sort out and state reasons for it being canceled. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content is there. Mostly filling some details and clean-up now. Some copyeditting/review comments would be of help. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bell 206 family development

In conjunction with BillCJ's development of separate articles for each of these aircraft, I'd like to see if anyone thought that a somewhat comprehensive article on the family's development would be beneficial. Development is easier to establish than an Operational history, so I think this article would be fairly easy to create. If it worked out, it would show a continuity as each model was conceived, developed, modified, and ultimately, either produced or canceled. I think this section title would work well, too. --Born2flie (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. And thanks for the cleanup on Bell 400 - Leads are very difficult for me to write. - BillCJ (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem on Bell 400! :) --Born2flie (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter Biographies

I was starting to remedy the deficient quality of some of the American helicopter industry founders and ran into a little POV problem with another editor who simply claims I'm POV and he's not. I made a request for participation in the discussion on WP:AVIATION talk page. But it really has put a hold on my improving the Igor Sikorsky article for now. It might be time for a break, or I'll focus on work for other articles. I notice that there is a lack of a Charles Kaman article, but I have also had difficulty finding biographical information on him. Seems he likes his privacy. --Born2flie (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You might try asking at WT:Air also. I tried to put back your content and clean-up some things in the Sikorsky article. Sorry, I just don't care to get into the talk page discussion/"mess" there. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I think he might be a sockpuppet of another editor that is already on the talk page and is now banned. I brought it up to an Admin with experience with the main username that was banned. Similar issues of Russian/Ukrainian ethnicity and accusations of vandalism when pet information is deleted/edited out. Now he accuses me of OR for proving edits he is defending as inaccurate from the sources he is defending. Yeah, I don't blame you for not getting involved. --Born2flie (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a WP:Av aerospace biography task force that may be of help as well. At least add the "Aerospace-biography=yes" to the WP:Aviation talk page banner. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't see a lot of traffic on that task force. I had followed it from the banner which was already annotated. --Born2flie (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that Sikorsky article had the aero biographies on after I posted that. :( That's something to check on the other biographies... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft leads

For rotorcraft, what do you think is important in establishing the aircraft? For me, I focus on the rotors (number then number of blades), number of engines, role, manufacturer, and additional information:

The Helicopter Name (Company model designation) is a four-bladed, twin-engine civil utility helicopter produced by Helicopter Manufacturer.

I imagine that it is easier to write them for military helicopters which are built for a specific mission or for a specific service. For commercial helicopters, I'm wondering what is good information to include? I'm thinking that first flights, certification, launch customers and primary or notable use are good inclusions in the lead. Thoughts? --Born2flie (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely important to describe what the aircraft is first like that. After that I suggest basic info like when it entered service, seating/payload capacity and maybe notable characteristics. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Born. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He's asking what all should be stated in the Intro or Lead of a helicopter article, in general terms. A lot of civil helicopter articles, like Bell 222 only say the basics in a sentence or two in the lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-53K article

The Sikorsky CH-53K is a new version of the CH-53E Super Stallion. The CH-53K is currently under development and will be larger/heavier and more advanced. I've worked on a CH-53K sandbox article to cover it. I wanted to wait to move the sandbox to main space after getting a full set of preliminary specs. Currently Sikorsky provides some specs but no dimensions yet. See CH-53K page (click on Attributes tab) for that.

I'm using CH-53E data as placeholders in the Specifications section. What do you think? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ready, and I'm OK with the specs as-is. We've been waiting on them for awhile now, and we don't know how long it might take to get them. We might try asking User:Cefoskey about it. He works for Sikorsky, and he may know of some fuller specs that have been released that we can cite. Good job with the article, btw. - BillCJ (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Copied sandbox to Sikorsky CH-53K. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Westland Sioux

A user has created a variant article at Westland Sioux which is full of errors and badly cut information from Bell 47. Probably not enough for an article on its own but if it is to stay it probably need a complete re-write! MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Slapsnot seems to be a Westland fan among his other interests and is focused on creating articles for every Westland aircraft he has information on. If the article actually discussed Westland specific information, I would think it would be valuable to keep. If we don't want it to stick around, I recommend we prod it, but if we want broader support for the prod, we should discuss prodding it on WP:Air discussion page. --Born2flie (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is just not enough unique content here to warrant a separate article. Unlike the Whirlwind, Wessex, Sea King, or even the Widgeon, the Westland variant is not that much different from the Agusta- or even the Bell-produced models. The final factor would be its service history, which at this point doesn't seem to be notable either.

There is another option worth considering at this point: We could move the page to H-13 Sioux, and epand it to cover all the military variants. While the Bell 47 page is really not that long, it is somewhat dominated by the variants section. This split would be along the lines of the UH-1/204-205 and UH-1N/212 article splits, which cover military and civil usage. That deliniation works fairly well, aside from the occasional edit of someone adding a military user to the civil page, or vice versa. It has also enabled, and even spurred, expansion of both types of articles after the splits. I think such a split would work well in this case too. - BillCJ (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with splitting, although it will make some cleanup for us to go back and make sure other articles link to the correct civilian or military article. --Born2flie (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. The split might spur some expansion of the 47 article too. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll try to get something started in the next day or so. Also, it's probably about time we had an article on the Bell Model 30. We don't seem to have any pics for this model that I can find. AFAICT, there were three actually Model 30s built, with each looking very different from the others, so eventually having photos of all 3 would be best. I may try to get something started on the 30 in the next few weeks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Milb1, can you delete H-13 Sioux, and move Westland Sioux there? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Karem and JHL

With this report on Lockheed Martin, Karem Team on JHL Tilt-Rotor being released to day, we might need to start putting together an article on the US Army's Joint Heavy Lift Program. In addition, we could use article on Karem Aircraft (formerly Frontier Aircraft, until the drone business was sold to Boeing), and its founder Abraham Karem. As Karem was a former chief designer in Israel, and developed the predecessor of the MQ-1 Predator, I don't think we'll have any problem finding sources to attest to his notability, or that of his company either.

My health has not been so good the past two weeks, so I'm not trying to start any new article projects right now. If someone wants to work on some of these though, I'll be glad to chip in. (Note: Jeff, it doesn't have to be you, unless you really want to! You clean up after me enough as it is! :) )

Links to get started

unsigned comment added by The Founders Intent (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

http://hill6.thehill.com/business--lobby/house-language-could-create-friction-over-chopper-programs-2005-06-01.html

Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help with the JHL program article. I couldn't find any good .mil pages on that. Will have to look some more. The other two proposed articles don't interest me much. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. The JHL will be a longer WP article, but probably easier to find sources on. As usual, the Global Security site has lots of details, but no specific sources. However, the long pages there do give plenty of key words to search the internet for published sources. As to Abe Karem, I'll probanly try to do a name search on him this week, and hope to find a good trade mag or newpaper article with some good bio info on him. What I know already seems pretty fascinating, as he was born in Iraq, and later lived in Israel for many years before coming to the states. Details on all that should be very interesting. - BillCJ (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some military links. Army RDT&E Budget, see p. 6, Mounted Vertical Maneuver, (looking for more) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, thanks for the links. I ended up spending an hour-and-a-half last night creating astub on Karem Aircraft after some admin deleted a redirect from Frontier Aircraft to the page, despite my commetns when I added the link the page was coming soon. I guess admin are exempt from WP:DICK! I also had to battle a bot an a user who kept tagging or deleting text I copied to start the article with, inspite if the underconstruction tag and my recent editing! I should have used the {{inuse}} tags, but I didn't think it necessary that late at night. Anyway, there's a basic stub there now, so I'd appreciate any proofing. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JHL / JFTL update

JHL has been renamed Joint Future Theater Lift. The US Air Force has been brought onboard. It's not supposed to be limited to helicopters now. There's more info in these articles: "The Program Formerly Known as Joint Heavy Lift", "USAF, Army Merge Heavy-Lift Efforts" -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: Politics has taken over the program. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Army has had some troubles developing and fielding new aircraft. ;) So has all of DoD in places. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More on JHL: "U.S. Army Extends JHL Concept Studies". Looks like the Army is trying fit the main JHL designs in the new Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program, which is good that it won't be wasted. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The US services are still trying to combine requirements for Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL). "Intraservice Wrangling Over JFTL Continues" -Fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And the Navy has joined on in a minor role. "ONR, U.S. Army Partner On Joint Heavy Lift" -Fnlayson (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A summary at "Joint Heavy Lift: Past, Present and Compelling Future" from Rotor & Wing. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

JFTL will happen and it will be VTOL. Think about it: The multi-billion dollar effort to develop the lightweight, highly mobile armored vehicles under FCS will be for naught, unless there is some way to transport those vehicles quickly from ships off shore directly to the battlefield. If the aircraft transporting a 25-ton FCS vehicle requires a runway of any sort, regardless of length or quality, then the FCS-equipped forces will get into the fight no sooner than their heavy-armored M1/Bradley equipped counterparts flying in on C-17s or C5s. The rapid deployment FCS vehicles are useless without a sea-based, VTOL JFTL.Riff raff99 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

European heavy lift

Does anybody know if Heavy Transport Helicopter is connected to a "Future Transport Helicopter" program listed in this article ? They look similar and Eurocopter is involved in both. Just wondering. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Attack Helicopter article

I'm working on an article for the Advanced Attack Helicopter program at AAH sandbox. I think I'll be ready to move it to main space in a few days. Help if you can. Any comments/suggestions? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got about all the reasonable details in there from my sources. I don't have anything that covers the details of flight evaluation/testing in 1976 though. If you have a source with this info, please help. I'm looking for info online, like Army reports now... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried flightglobal.com? Google search. --Born2flie (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I got one hit from there when I did an internet search for "Advanced Attack Helicopter" over all domains earlier today. But I did not think to focus on that site. FI should have more details. Thanks. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Attack helicopter contenders (goes on for a few pages) looks like the best article in that time frame. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the article failed to mention that Bell missed the deadline for prototype first flight, and that Hughes made the deadline on the last possible day. There are FI articles from 1975 that mention that fact. --Born2flie (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So they had to fly by the end of Sept, and Bell was late by 1 day. Seems minor, but I'll look to see how significant that was at the time. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sandbox has been moved to Advanced Attack Helicopter. Help improve it if you can. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Jeff! - BillCJ (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bell 407 for Army?

See US Army Awards Urgent Order For 3 Bell 407 Helos / Pentagon Contract Announcement. Any idea what this is for? And what will they all them? The UH-70B? - BillCJ (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything on the internet is a copy of the DoD contract notice. I was thinking this was a foreign military sale at first, but it says it's for the US Army. Order is call an urgent need?? Maybe for some type of prototyping. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Army - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/20/322894/us-army-buys-first-3-bell-407s-for-iraqi-air-force.html MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I had searched the internet earlier, but that did not show up yet. I forgot that Iraq has selected the 407. If it's a success, that might bolster Bell's chances in the ARH replacement contest, since the ARH-70 was originally supposed to be an off-the-shelf procurement, until the Army decided to try to turn it into Airwolf! :) - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Milb1. That is a foreign sale of sorts. ;) As the ARH world turns.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More like a "foreign gift", which is probably why the Army seems to be handking everyything directly. - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There was noise about this issue last year.[1] Iraq is looking for 24 ships. Wonder if the three are de-MILed ARH-70s? --Born2flie (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rotorcraft programs to watch

There is some slight movement on India's military helicopter acquisition programs.

Also, is the U.S. Army's ARH is dead...like a doornail dead, and not just the Bell version?

Will the Army be looking to replace the TH-67 Creek as its primary training helicopter in the next 5-10 years?

I have no definitive answers to the questions, but I'll be watching the news for information. --Born2flie (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Looks like the VH-71 is a candidate for axing also, or at least drastic cutbacks. I saw something about the Army wanting to update the remaining OH-58As and Cs to D standard, so that may well be a sign they don't expect replacement anytime soon. Given that our new emperor is spending money left and left, and promising to cut the budget deficit, I think a lot of defense cuts are coming up in the next year or so. It will definitely be interesting to watch, in the proverbial sense, as defense cuts are no fun for the military, who are usually expected to do more with less in such times. And our enemies are not stupid. They'll be waiting. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

OH-6A NOTAR

A new article has been created as OH-6A NOTAR which doesnt seem to fit in with the other aircraft articles about the family, should it be part of another article ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only one or two substantial statements to the article which can be validated. The statement marked as needing a citation is WP:OR as it is presented. The remainder is a list of other MD aircraft models. Until there is substantially more information for an article, it should either be part of the MD600N Development, or listed as a variant on the OH-6 Cayuse article, or both. --Born2flie (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been clean up. It had a lot of stuff that did not apply or did not seem to at least. It is a stub length article and needs to be merged to the OH-6 and maybe NOTAR articles. Especially since this article is uncited. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The OH-6A used for NOTAR testing is already mentioned in the NOTAR article and OH-6A NOTAR has a short entry in the OH-6 Cayuse article. There would be very little to merge. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have prodded it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help with articles

If you need help cleaning up, expanding, or starting a rotorcraft article, please post it here. Also add it to the {{WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft}}. I added Bell 30 in the requested article area there. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

UH-1 Development

I've been reworking a streamlined version of the UH-1 Iroquois variants for the Development section of the UH-1 Iroquois article in my sandbox, focused more on timeline of the development, rather than model. Consequently, Model 205 development comes before the two Model 204 developments for the Marines and the Air Force. I also plan on revising Operational history, although I am really not far along in that regard. Please take a look and comment. --Born2flie (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That should flow better with a more chronological arrangement, in my opinion at least. Some info and cites have been added to both articles since June, in case you copied text over before that. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tail rotor

The helicopter rotor article contains more info on tail rotors (or NOTARs) than the tail rotor article, which is supposed to be the main article. The content needs to be moved, leaving only a summary. Dhaluza (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Doblhoff WNF 342 help

Just created Doblhoff WNF 342 but the sources contradict exactly how many machines they were, four aircraft V1, V2, V3 and V4. Certainly V4 was new but it seems V2 was converted from V1. Appeciate if anybody has some reliable references and can have a look at it please. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit of info from the Apostolo helicopter book, but it has no info on number built. According to aviastar the book German Aircraft of the Second World War covers the number built and says V2 was V1 conversion. Maybe somebody has access to that book and can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Project participation

There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review open for Bell 533

Bell 533 is up for peer review at /Bell 533 on the WP:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review page. Please help by providing review comments. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks a lot. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, if we don't get much/any response, maybe we fish it over to WP:MILHIST aviation task force as well? --Born2flie (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point Born. I was not thinking about that route. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Added Mil History project banner so that is an option now. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-92‎ help

A user has been moving the Accidents section in Sikorsky S-92‎ today. There was some claims added from an August 11 article. I moved that to the Operational history section. Could somebody please look at the article to see if claims are covered by reference? I need to run an errand now. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

BilCat handled it, thanks. The user that added the claims to the S-92 has moved onto VH-71 Kestrel. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I went to help, but by the time I got around to it, it was already done. --Born2flie (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The user could come back and move the Accidents section to Operational history again.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Related to the Cougar Helicopters S-92 accident earlier this year, a user added some POV content to Sikorsky Aircraft and I removed it. This looks similar to some edits in April. Please help keep an eye out for this stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AW159 Lynx Wildcat

Please look at AgustaWestland AW159#Controversy and try to address the tags. This section was added today and is all block quotes, which most should be summarized. I'll be out of town today and can't do it. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Situation was handled. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommend closing merge discussion

BIM is one method and the name is probably owned by Sikorsky. Not much point in merging that unless multiple methods are going to be presented. Rotor blade inspection techniques probably deserve a separate article anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiltrotor/Tiltwing merger discussion

There is a merger discussion occuring on the Tiltrotor talk page. Please weigh in with your comments. --Born2flie (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Just for information Fairchild Hiller FH-1100 has been moved to FH-1100 (Helicopter). Not sure why ? appears not to have been discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No comments ! Ok I will repost this on WP:AIRCRAFT for any opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class reviews for AH-56 Cheyenne

I opened an WP:Military history A-Class review for AH-56 Cheyenne. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks for review comments or help with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An A-class review has been opened for AH-56 Cheyenne at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/AH-56 Cheyenne. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks in advance for review comments and/or help improving the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

These passed. Some copy editing by uninvolved editors would be of help however. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

UH-1N replacement

It's been slow over here. Well the US Air Force is beginning a search for a replacement helicopter for its UH-1N. See "USAF starts search ..". They want a version of an existing helo. The UH-1N article can wait to cover this when a replacement is selected, I think. Maybe mention this contest in the types being offered. Maybe the UH-1Y, & UH-72 can fill this, but not sure if they can do the 3 hr endurance. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And "USAF Seeks To Replace UH-1N..." for another article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It'll be intersting to see what aircraft Bell submits, the UH-1Y or a 412-based model. The Yankee is probably "over-qualified" for the role, while the 412 may be under-powered, being basically the same engine and airframe and the UH-1N, but with 4 blades. Peraps a UH-1Y with mostly 412 avionics? One advantage of the Yankee might be that the November airframes could be recycled/zero-timed, saving some money. The USMC has a mix of new and rebuilds, though in their case the new-builds were oredered because Novembers couldn't be spared because of the WOT. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Either a Defense Daily or Aviation Week article mentioned Sikorsky saying their H-60 can meet the requirements. Seems a bit little bigger than needed, but there are other requirements. Should be a lot of helo options if transportability requirements are not too tight. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Helicopter specifications

I feel we need to interject on the aircraft specifications templates for specific performance parameters. For instance, I feel there needs to be an optional output for HOGE ceiling and HIGE ceiling, which are better indicators of where a helicopter is likely to be able to operate rather than service ceiling. Some parameters, such as cruise, are questionable for helicopters. What is the industry standard for specifications, specified or not? What are the really important pieces of information to convey as a specification for helicopters, or for rotorcraft in general? --Born2flie (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed some different altitudes for Service, and Hover OGE ceilings lately. With the Template:aircraft specifications the '|more performance=' field could be used to list the hover data if desired. No idea on industry standard data. I bet it depends on the customer or aviation regulator requirements. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Army LHX article

BilCat's had a good idea to link Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX) program in some articles today. This might be something to start in a sandbox. Anyway, RAH-66 Comanche, Bell D-292, and Sikorsky S-75 are related articles with some basic info. I already have a Joint Future Theater/Heavy Lift sandbox that I have barely started on. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just created Light Helicopter Experimental as a stub any info appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Took content from the RAH-66 article to fill in some and provide refs. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominee made Good Article

AH-64 Apache was nominated for Good Article and is awaiting review. The article passed GA nom in late March. Thanks for helping to improve it! -Fnlayson (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Send in the Drones?

See US Army may ditch OH-58 Kiowa Scouts for pilotless fleet. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon is also restating the VXX presidential helo replacement program (article). Put out an RFI on it this week. A VH-71 version may get reproposed if it will meet the new requirements. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

S-61s for Afghanistan

The US State Dept. is ordering up to 110 upgrades/refurbished S-61Ts. According to this AF Monthly article, that's close to all the S-61s that were made. Looks like the writer is leaving off SH-3s or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article in the link reports that Flightglobal says the first four are conversions from S-61Ns all the rest are H-3s. See also [2]. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CSAR-X

Looks like CSAR-X is to difficult so the USAF is modifying UH-60Ms into HH-60Ls instead [3]. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Will probably be HH-60Ms, new Pave Hawks. I think they ordered a few to replace lost HH-60Gs already. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looked like the USAF was planned to just order more H-60Ms in February. But the Air Force Magazine shows a sources sought/request for information notice was put on the fbo.gov site last week. Guess they have to do this so they won't get stalled by a non-competitive contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination for V-22 Osprey

V-22 Osprey was nominated for Good Article status in late April. Please help improve the article. The issues presented so far in the review have been addressed. I finished adding WP:Alt text to the captions today. Take a look at the captions and Alt text and reword where needed. Thanks for any help or suggestions. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The GA reviewer seems to have been tied up and has not given any further comments. Any suggestions with this article? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's done and it passed. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I started a V-22 Peer Review. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks for comments or any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bell 407 Fire-X UAV

Northrop Grumman and Bell are working on a UAV version of the Bell 407 as a demonstrator aircraft (see Av Week article, NG page). It is like MQ-8 Fire Scout, but larger. I don't think it warrants an article yet. So does adding a variant entry for Fire-X to the 407 article seem like a fair approach? -fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, but we should probably create redirects, and watch the other permutations, in case an article shows up, as one did at Eurocopter X3 this past week. (Not a bad job, but that's not always the case.) - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, a variant entry was added to the 407 article. Will do a Fire-X redirect also.. -fnlayson (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An update: Aviation Week is reporting that the US Navy has funds to order more MQ-8 Fire Scouts in the 2012 budget request. These include 12 MQ-8Cs, which is the designation for the 407-based Fire-X. The Av Week article is subscription now, but may become free. Just an update. I'll post something at Talk:Bell 407 tomorrow or so. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inactive status?

this task force was a good idea, and we did improve coverage of helicopter articles within WPAIR. FOr the most part, rotorcraft articles are now "mainstreamed" within WPAIR, and given that activity here is down to almost nothing, should we inactivate the task force? Just asking. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is inactive, but this task force is active. Or at least a lot activity on the rotorcraft articles. -fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the task force is still valid. I think we've been able to mainstream the rotorcraft articles because we have been able to represent rotorcraft in the discussions on WP:AIR. I would hesitate to inactivate it and need it again. I think it may be better to work on recruiting participation from editors active in editing some of the main pages. I apologize that I've not been active as much, but job responsibilities have taken up a lot of my time the last couple of years. --Born2flie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what you guys said. :) Seriously, if either of you ever need help with something, contact me. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This conversation makes me think that this task force scope could/should grow some. What about adding VTOL aircraft? Adding STOL would probably make drawing the line difficult. -fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think STOL gets into to fixed wing territory, which is probably not a good idea. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bell 577

Anybody know what a Bell 577 is? according to the FAA [4] it is (or was) a single-engined 12-seat turbo-shaft powered rotorcraft, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I can't find any more on it that that FAA page. I wonder if that model number (500-series) is for some special/experimental model like the Bell 533 (modified UH-1B/Bell 204). -fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It may have been a proposed civilian variant. Notice that there is zero aircraft registered. --Born2flie (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-97

Just created Sikorsky S-97 for the armed aerial scout program, if anybody has any more info it would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work getting that one up that so quickly! I had looked at FlightGlobal only 2-3 hours ago, and the story hadn't been posted there yet. Good job! - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Just looking at something else and noticed it and was surprised it hadnt been started yet! I wasnt sure about Sikorsky S-97 or Sikorsky S-97 Raider and went with the first if anybody thinks it should be moved then I dont have a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This Aviation Week blog posting was all I saw on this until an hour or two ago. It looks like a new helo based on the X2, i.e. a derivative, not a variant. Defense News has put out an article on this also. -fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A user has proposed merging the article to Armed Aerial Scout, an article that he created, or incubating the article. The AAS article should be expanded, but this isn't the way to do it. Does anyone have a list of the possible contenders? I think AW just announced a variant of the AW119 this week as its possible candidate. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I had not come across that about AW. Bell is doing testing with a more powerful engine in a OH-58D to show it can meet the AAS hover requirement. Boeing has the AH-6S and Eurocopter has the the Armed Scout 645 version of the UH-72. -fnlayson (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See here for info on AW119. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with Armed Aerial Scout

The S-97 article is coming along well. The Armed Aerial Scout program article needs help also. -fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Around the World article

Today an editor created Bell 206L-1 LongRanger II "Spirit of Texas" to cover the first round-the-world flight in a helicopter. This event is covered in Bell 206#Operational history already. Does it warrant a individual article also? -fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not - just merge the extra details from the Bell 206 article to the new one, and leave a shorter summary. Btw, I've moved it to the less-wordy Spirit of Texas. The user seems to have an affitiy for long article titles, such as Stout Metal Airplane Division of the Ford Motor Company. - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

UH-60 Black Hawk article help

A couple IPers have added uncited info to the MH-60 variant entries at Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk#Special_purpose. I can cite the basics, but probably not all the details. I plan to reword and cite these entries using the H-60/Black Hawk books I have. I can access Jane's through work and may use that for recent details. Help if you can. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, no response here. I asked at Talk:Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. Reply there.. -fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Meant to help out, just got tied up with other things. I will check it out. --Born2flie (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AH-56 Cheyenne

I just recently cleaned up a bunch of POVandalism, introduced by an AH-1 fan, in order to try and retain the A-Class rating of the article. The article is about the AH-56, not a comparison with the AH-1, and not a discussion on how the AH-1 came into service while the AH-56 was being developed.

That the AH-1 came to fruition while the AH-56 languished in development is properly covered in the AH-1 article. At best, such a discussion would also be suited for an article on United States attack helicopter development, but there is no need or cause to be cross-pollinate articles just because the subject matter is similar or the timelines intersect at one point. That the AH-1 successfully served in Vietnam has also been claimed as a cause for the demise of the AH-56 program; But, due to efforts of members of the task force, the article accurately describes the conditions that resulted in the program's termination.

Other than the propagation and general improvement in quality of helicopter articles, in my mind, the progression of the AH-56 Cheyenne article to A-Class stands as the current greatest accomplishment of this task force. I would hope that it isn't the only one, and I hope that it is an accomplishment that can be eclipsed with even more A-Class articles and even FA-Class articles. --Born2flie (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The mention of the Army ordering the AH-1 as an interim measure for Vietnam was added in the main body by me on suggestion in one of the A-class reviews. One of the issues from the Mil History A-class review was it needing some copy editing for better readability, I believe. I did what I could, but was too familiar and involved with the text to see most of that. -fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, everything I edited out was added recently, after the article was already A-Class. Reading the changes and the edit summaries, it was clear the editor was bucking to promote the AH-1 in the article. I will compare the two to see if I edited out anything you had added previously during the A-Class review process. --Born2flie (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I cut out some of that text added to the Lead, but did not get all of it to prevent a back and forth edit battles. Another set of eyes of this would be good. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the part you inserted to appease the reviewers. I have reinserted it into a more appropriate location where it won't distract from the AAFSS narrative. --Born2flie (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect or not?

Since this talk page is slow, what about redirecting this talk page to WT:Air? The Military Aviation task force has recently redirected its talk page to the main Military history talk page to centralize discussions. Seems like a good idea to me. But think we should to get an agreement first to do so. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea I dont think the active editors are different then at the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Milb1. Anybody got a problem with this? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)