Talk:H-3 Sea King
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
H-3 Sea King is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
[edit] Canadian Sea Kings
This seems a little biased :)
Perhapse it would be better if a history of the political intrigue behind the Sea King's replacement was given instead. - stewacide
Woah, is it realy necessary to have a song lyrics on this page? The page should be about the Sea King and its uses around the world. The government of canada's reluctance to replace their's is realy of no conciquence.
- The replacement of the Sea Kings has been an ongoing political and military issue in Canada for more than ten years, to the point that the words 'Sea King' have become a standard joke for television comedians. It's simply not possible to cover Canada's present-day use of the Sea King meaningfully without discussing the replacement issues. David Arthur 19:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The info on the "Canadian experience" is excessive. It should have a page of it's own. This page should just provide general info about the H-3 worldwide. The same goes for the EH101 article.--Aardvark114 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
[edit] Is this really an S-61 Page!
This is one of many pages in Wikipedia that describes aircraft under the DoD designation. We then have stupid statements like 'H-3 Variants' when they should be S-61 variants. And chicken and egg statements like S-61 Company designation for the H-3 Sea King which should be the other way round. This main page should use the design designation 'Sikorsky S-61. Any Comment? MilborneOne 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. :)
-
- Agree, should change spage to Sikorsky S-61! Tolivero 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to create an article on the civil S-61 variants, then that would be fine. Sikorsky S-61 would be the best page for it. But the H-3 is a legitimate military version; it should stay here. Take a look at the Sikorsky S-70 and the UH-60 Black Hawk pages for comparison and ideas. --BillCJ 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just want to make the point that a H-3 is just a military designation for the S-61, but dont think we should split this article. The introduction does make this clear. MilborneOne 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree and I disagree: These articles primarily focus on the military versions. There is virtually no mention of application of the S-61 as a civilian aircraft. So, it is actually about the H-3 and its military siblings. But what about 'life after retirement'. I have spent the last 8 years working with retired H-3s. Converting them to Search & Rescue vehicles, Fire Fighters, Loggers, Transports for oil platforms,and for heavy lift opertations - installing airconditioning and communications gear on top of skyscrapers.
I have also worked with the Canadians in getting parts for their aging fleet. The major part of their maintenance expense is that they require new factory certified parts. They will not use any American Military equipment, and Sikorsky will only do production runs on large quantities of each part. So they make them pay for it. The Sikorsky H-3 parts production line has been virtually non-existant for about 15 years. Surprise - better than 60% of the S-61 parts don't work on an H-3. Westland went one better, only about 15% of the parts are interchangeable between the Sea King and the Commando, which is largely metric.
[edit] Westland Sea King Merge
Personally I don't see much reason, and if anything the Westland page should be merged into this article, not the other way around. PPGMD 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the merge template, there's no need to merge one or the other article. --Denniss 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
