Jump to content

Talk:Kent Air Ambulance

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

Quoted cruise speed

[edit]

Hello, speaking as an aircraft engineer on the original twin squirrel (G-SETA) of long ago, i have removed your 150mph high cruise speed info as it is not correct.

All helicopter manufacters quote a high maximum speed for press purposes, and the max speed the helicopter can reach is called VNE (Velocity Never Exceed). Which is the maximum speed the aircraft can physically acheive in flight, and this can only be reached in a dive and not straight and level cruise, so the performance figures are exaggerated!

Regards msa1701 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback on the article, that makes sense now and I bow to your superior knowledge. However, as a non-aeronautical type myself, I thought that it would be good to have a speed on there as it gives people like me an idea of what a "high cruise speed" is. 70mph? 250mph? Hence my keenness to include a number. Incidentally, you may like to give some attention to the MD-902 article which I also looked at yesterday whilst looking for a source for my numbers. That article has a cruise speed only 1mph lower than the VNE, which even an novice like me can see is clearly wrong! Cheers Danno uk (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, i hadn't seen this message previously, but i have reverted your changes to Kent air ambulance as the information given was well cited, and as per WP:CITE, Wikipedia deals in what can be proved to be true, not necessarily what is true. I can see why a manufacturer would overstate the performance of their product, but before removing citations, i would like to put in an alternative. Can you suggest another reliable source which would back up you assertion of a lower speed? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I will have a think of where to find a more accurate info!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, we should retain the cited source, as per WP:CITE and WP:V. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In response to your your message and a brief look at the MD 902 Wikipedia page and a telephone call to a 902 pilot the i know i have a few items to put to you.

1. The aircraft has a regular cruise speed of between 125 to 130 knots - which if you convert the lower on of the speed range of 125 (knots) times 1.15 (mph) gives you a cruise speed of 143 mph which is slower than the 150 indicated in the article.

2. The VNE is listed at 140 knots which i, as an rotary aircraft engineer know that from flying in helicopters for 20 years is the top speed of that type of helicopter and it physically cannot go any faster - unless the blades came off and it turned into a projectile!

3. The cruise speed of the helicopter is not 139 knots as a regular crusie speed like that instead of the 125 to 130 range consideably raises the fuel burn between the two engines and due to the natural vibrations of the aircraft causes premature wear of many moving parts - main rotor pitch links or airframe cracking etc. so a safe, smooth economical cruise is used.

4. Most 902's have apendages adding drag with items such as FLIR turrets, Skyshout systems and external steps and these item on Police and Air Ambulances slow the aircraft down by a good few knots.

Regards

11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional!

Your Sussex air ambulance article states the the aircraft can cruise at "Nearly" 150 mph - more of a correct statement???


Hi there again, i've replied on your talk page in line with policy on consistency. I don't disagree with your points, and i'm no aero engineer, but you should read the policy at WP:V which states the fundamental principle of Wikipedia that "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - i.e. it is not what is true, but what you can prove, that merits being in the encyclopaedia. As the information given is shown to be correct by a third party, who i would say are reliable in this instance (being the manufacturer of the equipment) and supported by an additional sources here, here and here, you need to be able to produce sources which are in line with the WP:CITE policy in order to make the change. I hope this makes sense, and that you understand that it's not because i don't believe you, but because Wikipedia only makes a reliable reference source if we try and stick to the principles outlined in the policies i've linked to above. I'm more than happy to change it to something that reflects a slower claimed speed, but we do need a published source. Please read the policies and then discuss further here if you feel you need to. I will try and look for a source, but probably won't get time until the weekend to do so, so in the meantime, please leave the article in place as it is. Regards OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As the third wheel in this particular menage-a-trois (no-one else seems to care at this point), I have to side with Msa1701. Whilst WP:V may apply in situations such as "Band X has sold 30m albums", "but that only includes their first 2 albums, not their third which has been out for 2 months", "but there are no figures for that album"; this debate, to me, appears to fall more under the auspices of WP:UCS. All of the cited references stem from the same common source - the brochure specs. If a helicopter engineer and a pilot both posit that those numbers are at best "optimistic" suggests to me that the figures aren't robust enough to guarantee their inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't think that this constitutes WP:OR, just that it renders sufficient doubt on the given citations to preclude their inclusion as inarguable, verifiable fact. On that basis, I propose reverting to Msa1701's last revision. I'll give it 24 hours and I'm also shifting this discussion to the article's talk page as that seems the more sensible place. Danno uk (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i've said before, it's not that i don't believe Msa1701, but we've only got his word for it. The original source from the manufacturer may be an 'ideal conditions' quote, but it is then repeated by the air ambulance trust itself (and they are actually flying it, so they seem pretty reliable) and they have seeminigly then quoted this on to external third party media sources, meaning they must be relatively confident. It is also supported by the article on the helicopter itself (which quotes top cruise speed of 160 mph). With good citations in place, i believe that we must keep the current version until we find a citation to replace the ones here (and even then, we should keep these citations and word it something like "the air ambulance cruises at around xxxmph (source), although the manufacturer specifies the aircraft of being capable over 150mph (existing sources)" which means that we satisfy all elements of WP:V and WP:CITE and apply it consistently. All we need to be able to do that is a source which states its 'actual' capable flight speed. I am very reluctant to remove a quoted number with four good sources in favour of 'i heard it somewhere', but very happy to include a change when we have a source! Regards OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking increasingly unlikely that we're going to reach a consensus on this (Owain, I still believe that the guidances that you cite are there to ensure that we don't post any unverifiable facts rather than compelling us to include "facts" that we are doubtful of just because we have citations for them), so in the interim, I propose that the text is amended to something along the lines of "...its high cruise speed, quoted by Macdonnell Douglas as in excess of 150mph". Not pretty, but probably the optimal outcome, whereby we're not stating that the top speed is 150mph, but noting that the manufacturer lists that as the top speed. Danno uk (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll the absence of discension as a tacit approval of my suggestion and will make the change accordingly! danno 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Surrey and Sussex Air Ambulance be merged into Kent Air Ambulance. The two air ambulances are operated by the same charity and fall under the same website.[1] [2] KiloEchoNovember (talk)

I personally prefer them as spearate articles, but don't object in theory to them being part of the same article, BUT it would need to be at a new title like Kent, Surrey and Sussex Air Ambulance, not merged in to one or other of them. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Owain on both points. danno_uk 20:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kent Air Ambulance. 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) 13:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Air_Ambulance&oldid=1212733593"