Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Helicopter

Born2flie: I just got done redoing the overview. I eliminated the comparative discussion of helicopters versus other types of aircraft and used the space to give a better overview of what helicopters are used for. I also began editing the /* History */ section, particularly expanding the paragraph on Pescara; correcting an error and then introducing significantly more data that I hope will be interesting. --06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've split out the Landing on a ship section to become the Helicopter deck article under the category Naval aviation. I have a recommended layout under Talk:Helicopter/Example. It kind of goes back to discussing the helicopter, the different types of helicopters and ultimately, I'd like to expand it to discuss the uses of the helicopter. I've also created an article called, Aerial crane (helicopter) that could be partly used to expand the article and linked to some that I feel would be worthwhile. --Born2flie 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R/C "aircraft"

Born2flie: Should R/C aircraft references be included in general rotorcraft topics? For an example, see Coaxial rotors. --15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project template

Taking a cue from the Military history project, I've added an option to the {{AircraftProject}} template. If you add |Rotorcraft-task-force=yes to the template , well, you can see my test result at Talk:H-3 Sea King. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates show a redlink for now, but I think this page can easily be moved to the projectspace. PS. Very nice to-do list, I wonder where I've seen that before. ;} - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I, uh, stole borrowed those focus things from you (credit given on my user page). I've looked for a silhouette of a helicopter to use that would look good and kind of similar to the one used for WP:AIR. It would be kewl if the "|Rotorcraft=yes" simply changed the emblem in the template and allowed a stat output like WP:MILHIST does for their task forces. I don't know if you want to be that intricate with it, I am just throwing that out there. --Born2flie 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AH-1 Cobra

Since the AH-1 Cobra is up next for major work, I thought I'd go ahead and ask this now: What about splitting the article in 2? The first article the basic Army models, including background and development of the 209. The second article could focus on the Marine versions, since these are the twin-engined models (arguments on PT6T being an actual twin aside).

As noted in the project tag's comments, the article does lack focus. The early history is shaping up, but the intervening models between the G and the W are only briefly mentioned in the Variants section. There is a great deal of history on the Army's development of the TOW models in the seventies, and the USMC's development of the AH-1T and W. I realize there's still a lot of room for expansion on the page, but I think in the end the article will still lack focus.

I know I could have put this on the Cobra talk page, and we can move the discussion there eventually. But since the CObra is up next revamping, I thought I'd give the task force a shot, and see what we think here first. - BillCJ 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be fair to cut the USMC versions out. Very few of the single-engine variants are flying, and there is a precedent with the Seahawk and Jayhawk articles being separate from the Black Hawk. I'd be for the split, but the problem would be what to call the USMC version: AH-1 SeaCobra or AH-1 SuperCobra? I would personally vote for SuperCobra being that it is tied to the current models and the SeaCobra could be referenced in the History. AH-1 only came up because it was the next one on the list, but it really needs the help. Oh, and Schweizer (Hughes) 300 advanced to B-Class, so I think we did a fair job on that one. --Born2flie 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about what to calls the twin Cobra page too. I guess AH-1 SuperCobra is the best choice available. - BillCJ 05:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Cobra is at-bat as a focus article, what do you want to do about splitting it up. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy doing splits, per the UH-1N and Bell 204/205 off of the UH-1 and 212. I think it would be easier to exapnd them after splitting, then we'd have a better idea what content needs to be expanded and duplicated. It would also let us list more specs for the various variants. Any thoughts or preferences on this? - BillCJ 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, considering the amount of traffic on the Cobra site, it would probably be best to add a split tag there if we decide we want to split it up. I don't forsee any opposition, but a lot of editors have been participating, and I only think it fair to give them a chance (to screw up our plans! :) ) - BillCJ 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd float the split out there and see what response you get (or don't). --Born2flie 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EC 145, BK 117, UH-72

There is very little difference to these designs beyond who designed it, who is currently building it, and who is using the helicopter. Two separate merges have actually carried support for a while. If nothing else, bolster up the EC 145 article with the BK 117 information, that will essentially make the BK 117 article obsolete and eradicate opposition to the merge.

The UH-72 article...well, we could revert it back to the LUH article and then redirect the UH-72 to the EC 145 article with some notable information about the UH-72 for those looking for information? I think I will play with both of these in my sandbox and maybe move them here afterwards as examples to be considered for those articles. --Born2flie 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one. As far as the UH-72, I think it's here to stay, esp. condidering speculation about it serving as the ARH. I know nothing my come of it, but it sounds like the Army's happy with it so far, and may may well end up in other roles/uses in the future. THe Army is still looking for a heavy-lift aircraft down the road, and there is the JCA contract also, I here that might get canceled, and then theres the af's CSAR-X contract, maybe the'y go small this time ;) (A little 4 AM humor, sorry). Seriously, I do see the article expanding in the future, and it's not that small right now. THe biggest need is pics.
As to the BK 117/EC 145 issue, it's 2-2 right now. At least the BK 117 group has a better case than the Ka 52 advocates! Given it's at a stalemate, it might be best to remove the tags, and let it rest for a few months. - BillCJ 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a plan for EC 145/MBB BK 117. hint: It resembles the Schweizer 300 solution, but without the naming concession. ;) --Born2flie 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Did some research. I'm not for the merge anymore. The problem is the article is very underreferenced. The second external link started changing my mind and then I hit avia.russion.ee and helis.com. Well, we can't all be right all the time. --Born2flie 05:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What points changed your mind? - BillCJ 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BK 117-C2/EC 145 is a stretched BK 117 modified with EC 135 elements added in, which is why I think Eurocopter went ahead and renamed it EC 145 instead of trying to keep the BK 117 designation. I've seen enough pics now that I can definitely tell the nose of the BK 117 compared to the EC 145. I guess it will have to be up to whatever the project determines about variants and separate articles, because I could see it both ways right now. I'm thinking JetRanger vs. LongRanger vs. 407. One is a whole new model, even though it was built based on previous models, while the other is simply a stretched variant. I guess the question is what EC 135 elements were incorporated into the EC 145 to make it different from the other BK 117 variants. Still working on that information. --Born2flie 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fancruft

What if we created an article as part of the project called, Helicopters in popular culture? Then, we recommend the removal of the Popular culture section of the WP:AIR guidelines and place the link to the ONE article in the "Related content" section of the helicopter articles that are found within popular culture. Thoughts? --Born2flie 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But we'd have to decide how to handle that page, if you want to patrol it, or just leave it alone?
I did something similar on a much smaller scale with ther Harrier variants, originally putting everything on the Harrier Jump Jet page. Another editor decide it might be better to have a Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page, so he created it. Even with no categories on the new page, you'd be surprised at how fast the crufters found the page! I quickly found out it wasn't worth keeping a tight leash on the page, so know I just keep an eye on it for stuff that's really non-encyclopedic. I'd recommend you go through the edit history there to get an idea of what will happen if we create such a page for helicopters.
If we create the page and leave it alone, they will find it, and in no time it will be full of all kinds of stuff, much of it badly written, and almost none of it sourced. Granted, it will be out of the regular pages, which is the point to it all. But being for all types of Helicopters, it might become a bear to keep even half-way decent.
Or, we could just leave it alone totally, but come back every 3 or 4 months, and revert it to the original version. Now THAT might be fun! :) - BillCJ 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for THAT one!! Yeah, I wasn't even thinking of "owning" it as a part of the project. "Create it and they will come." Hell, we'll even point them the way when we remove those sections out of articles. Let them have their way with it and then, if we go back at all, we can find out how much it has grown. --Born2flie 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think I'll take the Harrier pop-culture page off my watch list now, and just leave it alone. If it gets real bad, maybe someone will AfD it! - BillCJ 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No more redlink...it is done and several pages have the section removed. I've left it on the AH-1 and UH-1 pages. The AH-64 already has its own page. Others, I will address as I get to them. Basically, I have covered the Bell 206, OH-58, OH-6, and AH-1 articles. --Born2flie 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • New issue

I was looking through the Category:Helicopters and found two articles (Evac and Jolt (Transformers)) listed in the category. I went to the articles and recategorized them as Category:In popular culture and then found them reverted back into the Helicopter category later today. They aren't helicopters, merely representation of helicopters, is there something in the MoS or is it just the WP:AIR guidelines that says inaccurate representations don't count? --Born2flie 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went and pulled the cats again, and left a note on the user's page who reverted you. On another related note, before I came across this issue, I'd already added Category:Helicopters to UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture. Appropriate or no? Akradecki 02:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors, my opinion is that, no, it isn't a helicopter article, although it is about that model of helicopter in popular culture. The key, to me, is that it is in reference to popular culture, not that it mentions a helicopter. Just my opinion, though. --Born2flie 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects

I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#A_Single_Project_Banner_for_use_by_all_aviation_related_projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powered lift

Can you take a look at the Powered lift article. I'm about to taks an axe to it, especially the summaries on the Harrier, V-22, and BA-609 (they are summaries now!). We don't list descriptions of every type on the Helicopter page, so I don't think this is needed here. However, I don't know much about the FAA category (Born2flie confirmed to me that this category does exist), so I'm really not sure what should be here. Thanks! (Even if you found the page on your own this time too. :) ) - BillCJ 17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance, you're right, it needs help. I'm wondering about the "two have been produced" statment...Didn't the Sovs put a Harrier equivalent into production? Yes, the FAA has a category of "powered lift", but my understanding is that it applies to pilot ratings, not actual aircraft certification. Harriers were production aircraft, but only one or two (NASA aircraft) were ever civvie registered, and those were under the "Experimental" category. As far as I know, the BA609 is being certified under FAR29, as a Transport Category Rotorcraft. Thus, since the only definition is the FAA one, and since it is only applicable to U.S. certified pilots, saying that this term applies to aircraft other than pilot license requirements to fly it is really not appropriate. Just my 2 cents.... Akradecki 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the FAR ref that talks about powered flight ratings, it's FAR61.5. Akradecki 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One more thought...maybe this article is better merged into Pilot certification in the United States? Akradecki 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you got a good source to back it up, b/c the user who started it seems to really misunderstand the whole topic. I think he was extrapolating from the rating to coin a new aircraft type, but it really is covered better by other names/topics (rotorcraft, VTOL), and there's no real need to make a distinction here. - BillCJ 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 204/205

I guess I've gone Huey-happy this week! Alan knows about it already, but I'm starting to put together an article on the 204 and 205 civil versions (and ex-military models in civil use) at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. It's coming together pretty quickly, but still needs text on civil development and usage, plus at least 1 pic on a civil 204. I hope to get some text written next week or the week after. Just a heads-up. Thanks. Oh, I'm waiting on the TF to get to the Cobra before trying to work out a split. Just say when (no hurry). - BillCJ 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. - Alan and I are covering the 210 under this article, as it's indended for civil use (I think Huey II is for mil use). What about the Global Eagle? As it's primarily civil, I'm putting a mention in the 204/205 page. - BillCJ 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it was a slow nighte on WIki, so I was able to get the text finished. THe article is now live, so tweak away! I've also moved the Global Eagle discussion to the Talk:Bell 204/205 page; see new remark there. - BillCJ 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopters in popular culture

Hey, all...you might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture and voice your opinion. Akradecki 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a similar problem with the "AF1 in pop culture" page. I left a post on the WP:AIR talk page about it, and you might want to mention this there too. Of course, if we lose, we can move the info on both pages to the Helicopters in pop culture page, then we'd have a long article there, that's if they don't AfD it too. I definitely think WP:AIR needs to be involved in this. If they approve pop culture pages on a limited basis, at least that should prevent there deletion. - BillCJ 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Might actually have to reference that cruft page with sources to withstand the next onslaught.--Born2flie 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force Award

Do you think we could adapt the {{Wikiwings}} into WikiRotors? Not to give to ourselves (more than once, anway!) but to others who help out with rotorcraft articles on a regular basis. It might help to promote the Task Force too. Just a thought. And no, I don't know enough to do the graphics! - BillCJ 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I use {{subst:Wikiwings Award}}. I kind of like the Wikiwings the way they are, but that's just me. --Born2flie 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operators

As far as military operators go, I would like to recommend to the task force in particular but also see if we can get the Project and WP:MILHIST's aviation task force on board with actually finding which units use/used the aircraft and maybe an approximate number of aircraft. Example

Ultimately, it may be a bit more time consuming, but it lends towards developing the article closer to the perfect article. --Born2flie 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd also like to see some consistency in sourcing the operators lists properly, or at least permission to start enforcing the existing rules on attribution. COuld cout down on the revert wars over who used what when, like in the Cobra article. My 2 cents. - BillCJ 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aérospatiale Dauphin

You might want to check out Aérospatiale Dauphin. It was created by an old user whom I have seen active lately, but not seen since I began editing. He mau have more planned for the page. I hope so, but there's not much about the single-engine Daupin model, so I really don't see the point a of a split. In my opinion, it would have made better sense to split off the EC 155 model. Anyway, just wanted some second opinions. - BillCJ 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see much of a point, either. How many are singles are currently being used today? --Born2flie 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How many singles were built? I think it's about 40! The twins were far more successful. - BillCJ 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we recommend a merge? I dunno. We might need some source material. I mean, we've given separate articles to twin-engine and single engine variants of other aircraft, but 40 copies doesn't strike me as notable enough, considering that the follow-on development eclipsed the "original" configuration instead of two separate histories running concurrently. --Born2flie 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I that would be the best way to go. The early twins (SA365C) were fairly similar to the singles, but were improved substantially since then, while the single was discontinued in the early 80's, if not late 70's. THere is a separate artciel on the military Panther already. If anything esle needs to be split, I'd suggest putting everything before the EC 155 on the Aérospatiale Dauphin page (in essence, merging the single back in, but splitting the EC 155 off. I'm not certain the EC 155 actually uses the Dauphin name tho. Currently, that article isn't large enough to warrant a split, but I beleive there is more than enogh content available on the 365 twins to make the page unwieldy. I'm certian a page on the EC 155 would be longer that the single-engined page! And it would have pics! As far as histories running concurrently for singles and twins, the Squirrel versions (AS 350 and 355) are all on on page, so there is precedent even with succesful models for having both on the same page. - BillCJ 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of the UH-1N Twin Huey article as well. I guess we need to decide within the Project when an article is split off for a variant and not a derivative and when it remains a part of the older variant's article (or newer variant in this case). Seems if we could establish that then we would have much stronger arguments regarding license built aircraft as well. Because as far as I'm concerned, if the HH-65 wasn't popular enough a topic to stand on its own, I'd merge that back in as well. In my mind, I continually go back and read the FA-class articles of the project as a standard to be reached for. I don't judge on when a variant should be split out based on whether or not it is "notable" but on whether or not the article that results has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving FA-class status. If it doesn't meet that test, I'd much rather have it a part of a larger article addressing all variants so that it contributes towards the single article becoming GA or even FA-class. --Born2flie 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could use a checklist of some sort tht aren't "quite" guidelines, but at least something based on FA-status criteria to use to evalute proposals. I haven't done much reading on FA status at all, other than reading a few reviews of articles. But I do evalute it in my head to see if I think there is enouvh content out there to make a decent article. Doing formal evaluations is not one of my strong suits, so I tend to focus on making sure an article at least meets the page content guidelines, and if it does, it's contnet is usually at least a strong stub or a good start class. I also take into consideration its history, usage, and familiarity with the public. As with the HH-65, there is usually so much material available on US aircraft, especially the foreign-designed ones, that it makes sense to cover them separately under their US designation. The HH-65 is probably on the margin it that sense.

On the UH-1N in particular, I definitely believe it needed to be out on its own from the main article, content-wise at least, as the UH-1 and 212 pages both had weak, often redundant coverage of the N-model. I didn't think it through all the way, or I would have dumped its info into the previously-existing UH-1Y page first, and then renamed it. Given all of Bell's problems, the H-i Upgrade among them, it remains to be seen if the UH-1Y will survive in the long term. Alan supports keeping the 2 separate, you seem to favor having them together, and I'm on the fence. It's another case were I see both sides of it, but there's not one strong deciding factor either way for me. If you feel very strongly that they ought to be together, I'll support you on it. You've stepped back and let me do things I felt strongly about, as has Alan, and I think that's all part of working together. If I went a little overboard on splitting the Huey articles up without discussing it first, and stepped on your toes in any way, I'm sorry. I support all of the splits in hindsight save for the UH-1N/UH-1Y issue, As I said, I just missed an easy option but moving so fast.

I don't want to do that on the Cobra, but we've already talked about doing it, and you seem to favor a split. Coverage on the Army models is extremely week, I know we'll be able to expand that part a lot when we start doing it in force. Twenty years ago, most printed material focused on the Army Cobras, as they were the backbone of the attack fleet. Since the Apache has come on the scene, the Super Cobra gets most of the attention, esp with 2 Iraq wars and Afghanistan. So I do think we can support 2 articles there very well. - BillCJ 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See, now, I wasn't going that far. I was just saying that if we split out the UH-1N from the UH-1 and the 212, for that matter, it seems that we can't argue against a single-engine helicopter having its own article from a twin-engine variant, even if that is all it is, a variant. Another example is that the OH-58D is included in the OH-58 article, even though the OH-58D almost is its own new kind of aircraft, with a 4-bladed main rotor, a totally different rotor hub, upgraded transmission, new engine, etc.. All I'm saying is that we lack consistency in how we approach why a variant will get its own article versus combining variants into an article on the type. It really has nothing to do with the UH-1N article other than here is a twin-engine version we've separated out from the single-engine version similar to how Rlandmann has separated out the single-engined Dauphin from the twin-engined versions, how do we justify recommending a merge with one aircraft and not another? It's a problem I think we as a Project, and not just this task force, need to solve together. --Born2flie 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translated article

Looks like one of my babies got translated! See it:MD Helicopters. The translator obviously did some of his own research, has some added sources, and there are other differnces, but the basic layout is very close. It has a company logo, but I'll have to check out the copyrights more closely to see if we're really able to use it. Anyway, I'm a Wikigrandpa now! :) Btw, I'm NOT taking complete credit for the whole article. I know Born did a lot of work on the Hughes Helicopters article, and I copied alot of it for the background; others contributed directly, as I believe Born did to. - BillCJ 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!! --Born2flie 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Aircraft_Rotorcraft_task_force_4cf7.html"