Talk:Helicopter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 Archive 3 →

Contents

Uses?

There is much information here, but where are the uses and examples of uses? World Wars? Today? I find that very important but not easy to find.I would change it to a B class for not putting prime information first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TribalXxX (talk • contribs).

Article Rating

I just took a prelim look at this article. It is very under cited. It needs many more references and inline citations (just for beginners). I will look a little mor eindepth later. As of now, I feel that a B rating stands. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Chris, thanks. I will put it on my To Do list. Hope others will also! --23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese WWII Helicopter

The History Channel recently aired a show on Modern Marvels entiteled "Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII", which lists information regarding Japanese helicopters including an attack on a US submarine. If there is evidence for this, we should update the page accordingly. Here is the info:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=205656 In the 1930s, Japanese designers created a range of warplanes, culminating in the legendary Ki-43 Oscar and the A6M Zero. As the war turned against Japan, designers created the rocket-powered Shusui, the Kikka jet fighter, and the experimental R2Y Keiun. We also disclose frantic preparations to assemble a secret airforce of jet and rocket planes to counter an anticipated US invasion in1945, and chronicle post-war aviation and the birth of the Japanese rocket program in the 1950s and '60s.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.16.99 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

IIRC, it was a licence-produced U.S. autogyro, not a helo. Trekphiler 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Different Direction

Born2flie: I think this article attempts to explain things that belong in other articles. An article about helicopters should have a good enough overview of the History and then focus on Uses of helicopters, rather than how they work. That approach has already been attempted and ended up in a bunch of articles being split out. --23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created an example article with my perception of where this page should be going. It is located here. --Born2flie 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Any opinions? --Born2flie 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, but I'd put the rotor section down under helicopter configuration. Akradecki 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Born2flie 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Song by Bloc Party

Someone should put a link to the song by bloc party at the top of the page, I would if I could work out how to. Ian 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Try Helicopters in popular culture. --Born2flie 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The song isn't about helicopters, it's just called helicopter. You have to put Helicopter (song) to get to the song's entry, and if you just put helicopter you might assume there isn't an entry for the song. Ian 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The song is listed on the Helicopter (disambiguation) page. I've linked to the DAB page in lieu of the song page, as there are other items listed there. - BillCJ 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, very good. I'd forgotten about the dab page. Akradecki 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First fully functional helicopter?

“ First fully functional helicopter was made by a Slovak inventor Ján Bahýľ in 1901, when he reached a height of 0.5 metre. In 1903 he reached 1.5 m, and on May 5, 1905 he reached 4 m and flew for over 1500 m with his petrol-engine helicopter. The last attempt was recorded by the International Airship Organisation.[1] ”

Svetovid inserted the preceding statements into the article as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Props to the inventor, but he basically invented the precursor to the R/C helicopter. "First fully functional helicopter" implies a lot and I don't find such a claim established by the source, or any of the other strangely, similarly worded references online. Anyone with a hardcover reference have something on this? --Born2flie 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted it to a state when there is information without any source at all? And I actually put a reference for Paul Cornu and updated the information. I reworded it.--Svetovid 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can find any number of sources that portray exactly what Paul Cornu did and what his machine was like, but all the sources for Ján Bahýľ come back with similarly worded dialogue. Nothing tells us anything about his "helicopter" with a petrol-engine that can seemingly "outperform" every true helicopter of that generation. How big was the wingspan? How much did it weigh? I can tell you this much, it didn't carry him. I can guarantee that much since it would take almost 15-20 more years to develop internal combustion engines with the power to lift a man. Show me a real reference that I can find in a book about helicopters that says that this man actually built the first fully functional helicopter and I will stop disputing it right now. I've pulled out D'Ascanio until we can better establish the claim to FAI records, and he has a legitimate claim to be mentioned in the history. We aren't talking about models, we're talking about full-sized, full-fledged man-carrying flying machines. --Born2flie 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

G.Apostolo regarding Breguet's Gyroplane No.1 flight in 1907, "But it was the first time a mechanical device had raised itself vertically from the ground with a man on board, using a rotary wing system, even if it could not be described as a free flight."

K.Munson regarding the same, "...the Gyroplane No.1...had to be steadied by a man stationed at the extremity of each of the four arms supporting the rotors. It cannot, therefore, take the credit for being the first helicopter to make a free flight, even though the ground helpers contributed nothing towards the lifting power of the rotors; but it was the first machine to raise itself, with a pilot, vertically off the ground by means of a rotating-wing system of lift."

It is also interesting that you edit Cornu's flight to be 0.3 m altitude when the reference you quoted says "about one foot (0.6 meter)" For the first flight, most sources do agree that only 0.3 meter/30 cm/0.30 meter was achieved, but later that day, almost 2 m was recorded. All with a man aboard the helicopter. How did Bahýľ know that his aircraft flew for 1500 m? He probably marked it off on the walk back from chasing after it. You also reworded the portion on Cornu to insinuate that the expert consensus (not the wikipedia editor consensus) was that Cornu didn't actually achieve what is known that he accomplished, namely the first manned free flight in a helicopter. --Born2flie 00:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a model. References in English are hard to find, I agree.--Svetovid 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Silent Helicopters?

I was just woundering if anybody has any information on silent helicopters or thier engines. I know that they are out there (ive even seen TV commercials for them), I just cant find any info on them.Gundam94 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about NOTAR? MD Helicopters has run some commercials in prime markets in the past. --Born2flie 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That does sound like an advertising thing. Really, how silent is "silent"? It's all relative. -Fnlayson 22:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Noise is an issue with all helicopters, I'm pretty sure there are no truly 'silent' ones... The NOTAR system does greatly reduce noise, as does the fenestron system. For example, the RAH-66 Comanche is near silent until directly overhead. The majority of the noise comes from interaction between vortices caused by the tips of the rotor blades. Since in the fenestron the tail rotor is enclosed, and NOTAR has no tail rotor, the interaction is removed along with a large amount of the noise.

Thanks, Jonabofftalk

00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Various edits

I restored the introduction from Equazcion's (Talk | contribs) edits. The introduction should encapsulate most of the pertinent facts of the article. Information can and should be repeated later and in more detail. I also fixed wikilinks to applicable articles. The article Aerial photography references both still and motion picture photography and is a more relevant and complete article for helicopters being used for photography. Law enforcement redirects to Police and briefly mentions police helicopters while Police aircraft discusses in more detail the use of helicopters for police work. "In fact" was used to link the explanation of the origins of the word helicopter directly to the sentence before it that describes how the helicopter derives its lift. I have edited that portion so the correlation should be a little clearer. --Born2flie 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Etymology explanation is commonplace in any article that defines an original word. "In fact" makes it sound like we're presenting an interesting tidbit of information that is only notable because of its relation to the preceding sentence, when really the derivation of the word is something that is expected to be included in an encyclopedia article.
  • I shortened the list of uses. I made the uses explanation more generalized for the intro. The full specific list isn't necessary there. I added a link to the uses section.
  • Also redid my copy edits of that paragraph. You didn't give any reason for reverting those.
Equazcion 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither did you. It was your personal preference to edit it, and it was my personal preference to edit it back. Kind of childish of a reason, isn't it? There was no problem with how the middle paragraph was written. You can argue the use of "in fact" in the introduction, but the entymology is more completely covered within the article itself (See History). You've edited the introduction as if it was a part of the general article at large. That's okay, it is a common problem I've seen on the Wiki. On this one article I had believed that we could finally begin meeting WP:TPA, but I guess not. And that's why Wikipedia fails. --Born2flie 10:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not childish. It's copy editing. Wikipedians are expected to copy edit, for no reason other than to improve wording and grammar. I stated my reason as copy editing. Copy edits aren't expected to come with individual reasoning for each edit. But if you feel the need to revert every edit, it would be nice to hear the reason you felt that was necessary, after the time one might've spent doing something he thought was an improvment.
  • Etymology is generally placed in the intro. Check other articles. Word origins are always placed there right in the beginning, no "in fact" necessary.
  • I'm sorry you think wikipedia has failed just because someone felt that your wording needed changing. I feel that it's succeeded. There's really no need to get adversarial.
  • I reinserted the distinction between aerial and motion picture photography. The aerial article only mentions motion pictures in two words - "motion pictures." And aerial photogrpahy refers to one particular type of photo taken from the air - the bird's eye view - and helicopters are used for much more than that.
Try to be a little flexible. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the work of many, not one. I'm sorry I messed with your precious paragraph, but you really shouldn't go pasting your original paragraph right over all my edits. They couldn't all have been that bad. And to call it childish that I copy-edited your paragraph, well that's just... not right. I could call you childish for writing the paragraph to begin with then :) At least I compromised — I didn't replace the whole thing, just edited some parts, so some elements of the paragraph are yours, and some are mine. Let's share. K?
Equazcion 10:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit=your personal preference, since there was nothing wrong with how anything in the article was stated. There were no readability issues, you just preferred to see something written differently to suit your preference for how you felt it should be written. Again, childish isn't it? Oh, I know you won't accept that and will attempt to portray it as anything other than childish. It's okay, I can accept my reversion for what it was, copyeditting because I preferred the way that it was written before you edited it (i.e. childish). The fact that I had to revert your butchering to get to what was previously there is just a method to accomplish the goal. You can have the edits as you would like. I know the way Wikipedia works and we can either have an edit war and attempt to get support for our views, or I can choose not to waste time and energy and depart. Problem solved. --Born2flie 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a nice person. Well all I'll say is that it isn't up to you to say whether or not anything is wrong, and furthermore just because I feel it can be improved doesn't mean that I've classified anything as being "wrong" per se. And this childish business... I mean, if my edits are childish, then by that logic your insistence on the article remaining exactly "as-is" is also childish. And I actually think it is. You're missing the point of Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to change, evolve, not remain stagnant. I won't hold this against you though because it sounds like you're just in need of a vacation or something. Good luck with that, enjoy your grumpy solitude.
Just wanted to add some clarification. "Copyedit=personal preference," that may be true. The same as the original version being your personal preference. Wikipedia articles, I suppose, then have to end up being a composite or everyones' personal preferences, a compromise. I edited certain parts of your paragraph, leaving some of it. You reverted the entire paragraph so that it was entirely your version again, according to your preference. Guess which one of us showed more willingness to compromise. You speak of childishness — a child is someone who insists on having everything their way, or else they stomp around angrily, calling people names.
You won't win any mature adult awards any time soon, sir. Equazcion 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job — I just fixed a couple of small things:

  • Advantages, being a noun, "come from" somewhere. They aren't "due to" something. For example, "The glass statue is due to the glass blower," is incorrect. Adjectives are due to something - "It was wet due to the rain". You could use "due to" in this case if you change "advantages" to its adjective form, "advantageous" — "Helicopters are advantageous due to their ...."
  • A hover is by definition over a fixed point on the ground.
  • Things "land in" or "land on," not "land to."

Equazcion 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, helicopters can land to a point, a location, an address, etc. just as they can take off from the same. They can even land at a location. Because they can hover, they don't have to land on a point, they can land to a hover, which they usually do before they land on an object. They can also hover over an area. Sometimes this is due to the skill of the pilot or sometimes it is according to the flight profile for the operation. Helicopters can hover from point A to point B. That is called hovering over a line. Technically, that would be a line segment, which is a series of points between two points on a plane (not an airplane, of course). A line also exists along the intersection of two planes, but two airplanes intersecting due to traveling on the same line is bad. But, it is specifically because the helicopter can hover over a point, as opposed to an area or a line, that it is used to accomplish many tasks that both the airplane and autogyro cannot perform. It is probably important to point that out to people.

Now, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

due to
prep. Because of.

Usage Note: Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain, but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition.

Compare with, As an aircraft, the primary advantages of the helicopter are due to the wings... If you'll notice, I included all the appropriate elements of grammar required, even for those experts who argue how due to should and should not be used. You, however, make an argument that seems to be unreferenced and flouts even the expert consensus for the most conservative use. In fact, your recommended usage doesn't even appear to make the discussion. --Born2flie 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You're right about "due to". The use of "land to," however, you haven't adequately justified — you've said that a helicopter can land to a hover, but you haven't provided any evidence that this is correct usage. I did a google search for the phrase "land to a hover" and got zero results, and a search for "land to" in conjunction with either "hover" or "helicopter" yielded no such phrasing. But since you left that out of your most recent edit, and we shouldn't be ending a sentence with a preposition anyway, I suppose that's a moot point.
  • Similarly, I searched for the phrase "hover over a line" with "helicopter", which yielded zero results, and then "hovering over a line," which yielded 3 results describing UFO sightings — none of which used the phrase in the manner you describe. So I've removed that from the sentence.
  • I added "most" in front of "planes" in the phrases that describe things that planes can't do, because the truth is that some planes can take off and land vertically — VTOL planes like Harriers.
  • I added to the phrase: "...due to its wings, which in this case are rotor blades..." because I found this statement to be confusing. When you say, "...[the] advantages are due to its wings, the rotor blades, ..." it sounds like "the rotor blades" is another item in a list of causes for the advantages. I think my addition clarifies the actual meaning.
Feel free to continue with all the adversarial comments and sarcasm. I've also never had to justify every single one of my copy edits before... other people just allow a gentle nonthreatening compromise to be reached. I think you're just insulted that I came and stomped on your turf. I don't think you really care that much about these words — you just don't want mine to be the ones settled on. There's nothing I can do about it but continue to deal with you while you "have fun" making things more difficult.
Equazcion 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've over-complicated my response. I simply don't find your edits to be improvements over what existed prior to your arrival at this article. I know you don't feel that way, but I also find that you really aren't concerned with what anyone else thinks.

I will remove the most qualification from in front of airplanes because the fact is that harriers are not used in those areas, despite any perceived capability for the purely military machine to operate in the same capacity as a helicopter or any aircraft that might do a similar mission as the helicopter. As for the confusing statement regarding the rotor blades, it could only be confusing if you hadn't been reading the rest of the article up to that point, as if you had just picked an arbitrary spot to begin reading an article rather than beginning at the beginning. It has already been stated that the rotor blades are the "wings" (i.e. the etymology that you had previously contested its treatment) so to redundantly state that its wings "which in this case are rotor blades" is simply, well...redundant. Oh, did I already say that? The difference between our two phrasings, I wasn't introducing it as something new, but rather as a reminder. Still, I am more than able to simplify it.

In my edit history, I pointed out that the definition for "hover" does not imply that it is over a point, yet you've decided to edit that out again. You seemed to make such a big case about hovering being implied to be over a point, it is surprising that all the basic geometry stuff I threw out there for you just went over your head (point, line, area). Still, if you want to find out if a helicopter can hover in a straight line—which would be absolutely incredulous to any helicopter pilot that you would have to "verify" such a thing—you can google for "hover taxi", which usually involves a helicopter hovering over a painted line on the ground (generally straight, except for turns) called a taxiway centerline. You'll get approximately 636,000 results. I can even point you to the FAR/AIM which has guidelines for Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots as to just what entails hover taxi versus air taxi versus just taxi.

Let's see, you also edited out "are not able to take off or land" to "would not have access." Given the two, "able to take off and land" is much more descriptive and specific than "would not have access." Airplanes can fly to, around, and over most isolated and congested areas, they simply just aren't capable of taking off and landing there. So having access really isn't the issue that prevents the airplanes from operating in those areas, unless we're going to require the reader to do the mental gymnastics to extract your intended meaning of an area to land and take off from your stated "would not have access." Why, you could just simply say, are not able to take off or land. Oh, wait, that's what I already had written.

Finally, you also edited in your direct upwards motion bullshit again, which was previously perfectly vertical. Not to be facetious, but I don't write with the assumption that I'm writing for people who have to have everything spelled out for them. Lift, as a basic aerodynamic force, is defined as working in the up direction. My children even understand that lift works opposite of gravity, since they ask me to "lift" them "up" and they know that they fall "down". There is no reason that this article has to talk down to people by excessively and redundantly explaining things. What's more, if they need to know what lift means and which direction it works in, it is already wikilinked in the very first paragraph. --Born2flie 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read most of this latest response, but the paragraph looks almost perfect now. Good job! I'm just proud to have been the one to make it happen ;) Equazcion 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummmmm. No. 'Lift' is the force generated on the wing by its motion through the air. It can point downwards if the aircraft is upside down...WolfKeeper 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. "Upward" could be added before lift, but I don't think that's necessary. The "hover in one area for extended periods" part implies a normal orientation to me. -Fnlayson 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah that is a good point. Lift in this case isn't the general use form. In terms of aircraft, it can be pointed in any direction. My concern was more that it be clear that helicopters can take off in a purely upwards direction, but that seems apparent now with the added words, "without requiring the aircraft to move forward." Equazcion 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An airplane that is capable of flying upside down without stalling generates lift in an upward direction, less efficiently than it would if it was right-side up, or else it would accelerate downwards. In regards to the helicopter, if it were to orient the rotor perpendicular to horizontal, there would be no lifting effect, although the rotor blades can be said to still be generating "lift" as a pressure differential created by an object moving through a fluid. The same can be said for a helicopter's inverted flight, there is no longer a force opposing weight, therefore the aircraft becomes an artificially accelerated "rock", with the rotor propelling it downwards rather than "lifting" it. The quality and benefits of its self-induced acceleration towards the ground will simply become an academic discussion of the accident investigation board in short order unless the pilot acts to return the rotor system to a "lifting" orientation and prevent it from being torn up as the aircraft accelerates to terminal velocity.

The benefits and advantages of helicopters are not because the rotor blades produce a force named "lift" no matter which direction the rotor is directed, they are because the rotor blades rotating through the air generate that force without requiring forward motion. The misunderstanding seems to be that rotor blades can generate "lift" if they are oriented the same as a propeller or any other direction, but it is the entire rotor that lifts the helicopter vertically and allows it to descend under powered control in the same vertical direction. The lift described by vertical flight and hovering is the basic aerodynamic force and not the "lift" force of each rotor blade which contributes to it. Just when does this commercially-rated helicopter pilot, with thousands of hours, qualify to describe what the benefits of a helicopter are and how they are achieved? --Born2flie 08:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust your technical expertise, and you're probably the best person here to ask when we need to know how helicopters work. But this has to do with the best way to present the explanation to the lay person. It's more a writing issue than it is a helicopter issue.
If the concern is specifically to say that helicopters can take off in a perfectly upwards direction, and we've just shown that lift is not by definition necessarily in that perfectly upwards direction, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to add something like that in: such as "perfectly upwards" or "perfectly vertical." Lift being generated towards the ground is still lift, even if that wouldn't serve a purpose for helicopters. The same goes for a diagonal motion of up/forward, which the reader could think is what we mean, despite how smart your children are. Although as I said, I think the fact that you said the craft doesn't need to move forward is probably enough.
It's also questionable to refer to helicopters as VTOL aircraft, as generally that term is only used for fixed-wing aircraft. But it's not necessarily incorrect so I'll leave that up to you, being the resident expert. Equazcion 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a case of Wikipediopia. That is where a person doesn't really know anything other than what they've read in Wikipedia. Wikipediopia can only portray themselves as having knowledge from within Wikipedia where the knowledge is already bolstered by the "consensus" of Wikipedia. "Since the article on VTOL says that it applies to fixed-wing, then it must mean that VTOL is only used for fixed-wing aircraft." And by the same virtue, "Because the article on lift says that it isn't always in an upward direction, lift must not be an upward direction." Except when lift isn't in an upwards direction in reference to a rotor or to a propeller, it is called thrust. And thrust, when applied in an upwards direction, is lift. So, we have groups of people who don't really know anything except for what they read. Not surprising at all, I find life easily explained that way. Hey, maybe we can Google to see if lift is up or down. --Born2flie 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a case of an arrogant person. That is where a person makes completely unfounded assumptions, like presuming to know where a person got his claims from, simply because a certain source seems to match what he says. It's a shame you didn't think of the whole thrust thing for your first response, 'cause then all this might've been avoided, eh? ;) The VTOL isn't from Wikipedia. I do happen to know a thing or two about aircrafts myself, and in all the years in which I've considered it a hobby, I have never once come across the term VTOL describing helicopters. It also makes practical sense to me, since VTOL was coined to distinguish a class of fixed-wing aircraft; ie. to show a special ability that normally isn't attributed to airplanes. Whereas helicopters have that ability by definition already.
You shouldn't make assumptions. 'Cause when you do, you make an... well, you know the rest. Equazcion 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

VTOL is a description of a capability, not a class or category. Do a Google search (in English) for VTOL and tell me what the first link is. Here's an abbreviated look at what a real encyclopedia has to say. And, I never said I wasn't arrogant. --Born2flie 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to prove it. I already said I would leave it up to you. I was only explaining my reasoning, since you thought I had only read it off Wikipedia. And I'm glad you agree that you're arrogant. I hope you'll therefore be more careful about making unfounded assumptions in the future. Equazcion 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
“ I hope you'll therefore be more careful about making unfounded assumptions in the future. ”

But then I wouldn't be arrogant. I have other somewhat founded assumptions to make, but the rise out of that last one served well enough. Denying one criteria may confirm another, and so, one brackets the target with indirect fires until one hits the target or else the target presents itself as a direct fire opportunity. It is probable that you will not understand beyond the second sentence, but I'm really writing it for me, rather than for your benefit. :) --Born2flie 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you have the last word there, since it seems so important to you. Again though, excellent job on editing that paragraph you didn't want to edit. I'm glad I could motivate you to improve it. Equazcion 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6. Oh, it seems I have done quite a bit of motivating you to do your own writing (and this is just the last comment. There's more where that came from, I'm sure). And what we find is that what we see on this page didn't always look the same as how we find it. By the way, I'm still looking at "...a thing or two about aircrafts." I've watched it intently, because over the course of this discussion I have been led to a couple of conclusions that I could choose from; one, that you may not be a native English speaker/writer, which is bolstered by your arguments for grammar school rules applied against only slightly more sophisticated language and other, similar edits to earlier comments that sounded as if you were translating in your head as you typed, or two, that you were too busy rewriting the thought, in order to maintain an appearance, that you missed that typo. I will make no assumptions as to which one may be the truth, I simply share with all the source of these thoughts. --Born2flie 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm a native English speaker. I've lived in America all my life. My mother's actually a reading teacher! Go figure, right? The aircraft thing just isn't something everyone knows how to use correctly. You see it as obvious, no doubt due to your experience in the field. Even so, that's one tiny letter you're citing; hardly evidence of anything. Yeah I do tend to edit my comments a lot, it's a weakness. My initial responses are often more emotional than I would have liked, much like your final responses, only I see that as something shameful. So once I've let out my frustration I make the comment into something less infantile. Regardless, the fact remains that in the end I was a positive motivator for you, a fact for which I'm quite proud. You did a great job, and you should be proud of yourself too. PS. Good catch, adding in "the" where you missed it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude that this must mean you're not a native English speaker. Equazcion 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I kept waiting for the edit conflict as I went to post this one. And sometimes, your 5th and 6th responses seemed as emotional as the first. Still, it was nice that you could own up to the fact that it was all to prevent appearing more "infantile" than me (I win, but I was so pulling for a non-native English speaker). I'm glad you lost there, too. --Born2flie 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I'll let you have the last word there. Good luck with your next adventure. Edit: I just noticed the "I win" there. Hehe... Yes, you sure do win. Equazcion 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gyroplane Laboratoire

Saw the new edits. I had written this bit to insert. You may take what you like to amend what is currently in the article. I shall presently provide a reference for it.

The Bréguet-Dorand Gyroplane Laboratoire was finished in 1933. After many ground tests and an accident, it first took flight on 26 June 1935. Within a short time, the aircraft was setting records with pilot Maurice Claisse at the controls. On 14 December 1935, he set a record for closed-circuit flight with a 500 m diameter. The next year, on 26 September 1936, Claisse set a height record of 158 m. And, finally, on 24 November 1936, he set a flight duration record of one hour, two minutes and 5 seconds over a 44 km closed circuit at 44.7 km/h.

Munson, K. (1969). Helicopters and other rotorcraft since 1907. New York: Macmillan. 

--Born2flie 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Oops

I had only intended to edit out the comma on my edit, so I marked it as a minor, but then copyedited the next paragraph. --Born2flie 07:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 Release

Hi there. Before I consider sending the article off on it's way, I have a question. What makes this article so important that it does belong in this release? Tails0600 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It describes a feat of technology that's been used prominently in a very diverse array of fields, arguably just as much as airplanes. Everyones' lives have improved in some way due to helicopters, from allowing people to obtain more accurate traffic reports to finding criminals to transporting patients in an emergency. The article not only describes these uses but also explains the intricate and incredible technology behind them, along with their history. I personally don't think there's any question about this article's importance. 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there's no question about importance, but, congratulations, this article will be in the 0.7 release! Tails0600 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

d'Ascanio

The Italian Engineer Corradino d'Ascanio built in 1930 a successful coaxial helicopter, which flew under good control. His relatively large machine had two, two-bladed, counterrotating rotors. As de la Cierva, he provided the blades with hinges that allowed for flapping and a feathering capability to change blade pitch. Control was achieved by using auxiliary wings or servo-tabs on the trailing edges of the blades, a concept that was later adopted by others, including Bleeker and Kaman. D'Ascanio designed these servo-tabs so that they could be deflected cyclically by a system of cables and pulleys, thereby cyclically changing the lift on the blade as it swept around the rotor disk. For vertical flight, the tabs on all the blades moved collectively to increase the rotor thrust. Three small propellers mounted to the airframe were used for additional pitch, roll, and yaw control. This machine held modest FAI speed and altitude records for the time, including altitude (57 ft, 17.4 m), duration (8 minutes 45 seconds) and distance flown (3,589 ft, 1,078 m).

I previously removed the above entry regarding the Italian d'Ascanio because it didn't have a reference and the stated achievements conflicted with the referenced achievements of Oemichen. I have since found more references[2][3][4] that suggest that d'Ascanio did set recognized FAI records but I have yet to see a reference from FAI that corroborates this information and at the very least corrects the discrepancies. --Born2flie 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at reentering this piece, rewritten, of course, into the article. Just looking for an accurate FAI reference. I'm also going to put in about Bréguet's Gyroplane Laboratoire. --Born2flie 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spell check

I realize this is trivial, but is it actually "medevaced"? I've also seen "medivac" &, commonly, "medivacked", to avoid "med i vayced" (which "medevaced" suggests...). Consensus? Trekphiler 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a shortened form of medical evacuation. Medevac is defined on dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster with medivac as a variant. Either stick with medevac or spell out the phrase. -Fnlayson 06:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Geez, was I not clear? (Again?) The question was "medevaced" as v "medevacked". (BTW, I did know what it means... I've seen every episode of "MASH" oh, three or four times, for instance...) Trekphiler 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Geez, do you always expect everyone to do the research for you? You've only been waiting for the answer since May. The American Heritage dictionary and Merriam Webster prefer for medevaced but allow for medivacked. The online only dictionary.com prefers medevacked. I prefer medevaced. --Born2flie 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you always this rude? I wasn't asking for a spelling for my own use. I use medivac & medivacked. What I was asking was, should I change it? And I didn't want to get into (another!) revert war over it. Trekphiler 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I've been doing research without any help from you for 30 years.)
Yes.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:55, 09/17/2007
Are you suggesting that your response to Fnlayson was less rude than my response to you? --Born2flie 09:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that clear. You listed it spelled with an E and an I. I missed the K/no K part. I should check on this article more often.. -Fnlayson 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest helicopter crashes

I know that list is not correct. For example, 38 soldiers were killed on 18 Aug 1971 in a helicopter crash near Pegnitz, Germany. [5] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-fueling?

How long can an ordinary news helicopter stay on station before needing to refuel? How many hours can such ordinary helicopters be operated before needing significant maintenance? -69.87.200.63 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Two to three hours of flight time is typical. Maintenance schedules are similar to those of fixed wing aircraft, e.g. 100 hour inspections, annual inspections, and complete overhauls at 2000 to 3000 hours depending on the model. Madhu 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
♠ Really, then why does a Black Hawk cost $6000/hr to fly and a Cessna about $20/hr?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Electric helicopter)

I propose to merge the content of Electric helicopter into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. In fact, it's rather unclear why "Electric helicopter" is a distinct concept from "Helicopter". All sourceable content (few sources are given) should be merger into here, maybe as one or two paragraphs.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I question whether there's even that much material. Looks like a sentence or two, at most. There's only one type even referred to, a UAV that the only reference is the mfr's website, no indication that it is an actively-deployed UAV by any military source. I really see little useful content here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify...I'm not opposing a merge, if meaningful content can be merged, I simply don't see much meaningful content beyond a reference to the one UAV, and I question whether that's actually a notable product. Looks like Electric helicopter really just needs to be deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I did the merge. Revert it if you disagree. Anthony Appleyard 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Electric helicopter section merged to Radio-controlled helicopter article. There is very little information not already covered, and the unsourced advantages/disadvantages bit is added to talk page for editors of that article to consider. --Born2flie 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

History

User:Anthony Appleyard edited the History section so that each inventor has his own paragraph(s). My issue with that is that the section now reads like a grammar school paper on the history of helicopters. "In [date]...In [date]...In [date]...On [date]...On [date]...etc." I preferred it the way it was even though I know that it was in need of a rewrite halfway through the section. The current edit also downplays the Pescara/Oemichen tit for tat with setting records for helicopters. --Born2flie 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can wait a couple more days. Protracted periods between exchanges in discussions are good acceptable, I guess. --Born2flie 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The format with each invention in its own paragraph with the date at the beginning, is easler to look through for any one invention. This page is to show information, not for literary effect. Clarity of information is more important then "best literary style" and elegant variation and "varying the expression". Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "tit for tat" mean "retaliation" or similar (its usual meaning here in England), and thus a running competition between Pescara and Oemichen for height and/or speed and/or payload weight? I did not remove any text as far as I know as I split these paragraphs. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He also took out the title box, which you had added, and I had turned into an infobox, and have now restored. Going back the way it was in the text is fine with me. - BillCJ 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • About me losing the infobox: that was an editing blunder: sorry. Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem, we've all done things like that inadvertantly. - BillCJ 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Appleyard, don't change the format of another editor's comments on the talk page just because you feel it will be easier for you to respond to the points in a point by point fashion. WP:BB applies to the article pages not Talk pages. In fact, the guideline is to not edit even your own comments except for grammar and spelling.
Tit for tat means they went back and forth, each trying to surpass the other; retaliation for the other's accomplishments, if you want to put it that way. Elegant variation seems to refer to attempting to use different terms for the same thing. I'm not sure how that applies to where you put the date, since there are only two or three acceptable ways of placing a date in Wikipedia, and I have used one of those ways with the proper formatting to allow the dates to display according to a user's preferences. If we're arguing clarity of information, you've actually removed the clarity of information by altering the literary style, my case in point continuing to be Oemichen and Pescara, where the reader must now read three or four separate paragraphs that are related thoughts and come to the conclusion for themselves the short timeline in which those events occurred. It also creates an odd appearance for the paragraph discussing Juan de la Cierva which does not start out with "In [year]" or "On [date]". Now, if some of those "paragraphs" had been more than a sentence or two long, the effect would not be as obvious in its repetitiveness. But many of them were tied to other dates to give an understanding of the close proximity or the sequence in time that the developments occurred.
Contrary to your assertion, the readability and literary style are as important as the information contained in the article. It isn't a database for people to simply catalog information. It is meant to be read, and a well written article becomes highly rated in this encyclopedia. I do not believe this article could be more than a B-Class with the History section written in the format you have it. --Born2flie 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Today's edits to the History section: What the hell, over! --Born2flie 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify that thought. Wikipedia:Guide to layout says

Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points...The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgement and of controlling the total length of the article.

All of the previous information was adequately contained in the History section, but there seems to be an understanding that somehow people should be able to access only the information they want (as if they come to this article specifically to look up a single inventor/invention and the date it was accomplished). Perhaps you should just build a table that includes all the dates and their importance and we can just dispose of all that prose that gets in the way of looking up information? --Born2flie 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

elix / helix

(moved from my talk page. --Born2flie 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

  • Please note that, in a Greek word in the Greek alphabet, in standard ancient Greek, initial 'h' is represented by a rough breathing sign (like a very small raised 'c') and not by a letter. Anthony Appleyard 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The word is a transliteration of the greek alphabet and not a pronunciation aid. The word is spelled in the greek without a leading "h" and to place one there is inaccurate. You previously had no problem leaving the "h" off, and your edit summary that you know Greek is questionable in light of this diff. Are you suggesting that you now know Greek and are correcting your previous error? The greek word for "spirally", ελικοειδώς, appears to be the root word being discussed. If you disagree with the quoted source, which the text of the article, until now, has attempted to represent, then source it appropriately. However, your personal knowledge or current ongoing education in the greek language is considered OR. --Born2flie 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The rough breathing mark is not a pronounciation aid in that it is not optional in any way. It is accepted convention when transliterating Greek words to use an "h" to represent the mark. I have numourous print sources attesting to this, including Koine (Common, not Classical) Greek grammars (written in English) and English dictionaries that verify this. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, which Anthony has cited, is a well-accepted source on Koine Greek. I am trying to find some authoritative online sources to enable you to easily verify this yourself. - BillCJ 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
See this link for the use of "h" in "helix". - BillCJ 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The word isn't helix. Helix is a derivative from the same root word as spiral. The word I've shared is a word for "spirally", which is the word that Anthony already corrected to from the cited source. Now, since the document I sourced the origin of the word from is an essay on the history of helicopters, I can only suggest that the originator of the word did not simply choose the greek heliko or helix as the dictionaries suggest. This is a historical argument, not an argument about the correct pronunciation of a word. Technically, Anthony's previous correction of the transliteration without a source is scholastically dishonest, since he does not know if the word he changed it to, originally, was the originator's intent. If you can find the originator's intent, sourced in a verifiable source, such as the one I have already referenced, I'd have less of a problem with your arguments. I wish I could sit and talk this out some more, but I have to go fly. --Born2flie 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I do realize (sincerely) that you have a real tough job to do flying Elicopters in harm's way, and that rightly comes first. ANyway, I've looked at your source, http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/early_helicopters/HE1.htm , and it indeed does not have the breathing mark. Given that other sources do use the mark, or at least transliterate it with "h", isn't the better assumption that the author didn't know to use the mark, or at least the the transcriptionist left it off? My assumption on the latter would be that the original source used Greek letters for the word, and the copyist didn't realize the "h" should be added for Latin letters. (Sheer conjecjecture on my part, but an easy mistake most students of Koine Greek have made, and even more so if one hasn't studied it at all.) Wikipedia generally defaults to the greater number of sources, not to the singular source in oppostion - that's verifiability. Btw, Modern Greek does not use the "h" sound anymore (per the Wikipedia article on Greek language), and thus uses no breathing marks. - BillCJ 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a source for this article that says he used the two words, that were originally included in the article, to create the french word that became the english word, helicopter. It is a verifiable source. Show me a similar source that says that he used the "correctly" Latinized word you are arguing for (or even that he used hippopotamus) instead, and I'll be inclined to accept the changes. This isn't about what you know, it is about what can be established.
In a related source, that happens to appear to be the source of the majority of the history section of this article (minus Anthony's tinkerings and adjustments that appear to be adding information from helis.com), he describes d'Amecourt's creation as

...a word derived from the Greek adjective "elikoeioas" meaning spiral or winding and the noun "pteron" meaning feather or wing

– Leishman, J. Gordon. (2000). A History of Helicopter Flight.

And even Professor Leishman has sourced his "claims" --Born2flie 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is still a single source, not multiple sources. However, there is an email address for the good professor at http://www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman/helibook.html , near the bottom of the page. Though the porfessor is not a Greek scholar, but of aerodynamics, he still may be able to help clear this up. Perhaps we can contact him for further information. As to the word "elikoeioas", the text claims it's an "adjective". Apple, could you try to check the this word out? I'm interested to know if it's an actual adjective, or perhaps the genitive/ablative form of the noun (My Koine is rusty, can't rembember if adjectival for is ablative or genitive!) - BillCJ 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Professor is not the source referenced in the article, since before I began editing the article, very little was referenced. Of course, it was also before I checked for plagiarism, which is why the professor's page did not show up. --Born2flie 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • His "elikoeioas" looks like Greek `ελικοειδής heliko-eidēs = "resembling a spiral" or similar meaning, with the rough breathing ignored and lowercase delta misread or mis-typeset as lowercase omicron. Anthony Appleyard 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're using a transcription (heliko-eidēs), specifically, a Latinization of the Greek word, not a transliteration. Transcription is more concerned with pronunciation rather than an accurate representation of the word from one writing style to another. The rules for both are not the same. French, being one of the Latin-derived languages, would no doubt have an "h" at the beginning of the word. But that does not suggest that d'Amecourt was ignorant of the differences in the two languages and would place an "h" at the beginning of the transliterated greek word he described as being the source of his word. It is possible that the rules for transliteration have changed in a couple hundred years (-eioas vs -eidēs), but your understanding of the language (WP:OR) should drive you to find a verifiable source against the historicity of what is being said, not simply applying what you can find in a lexicon, since that simply confirms your OR and does not confirm or deny the historical fact being claimed and that has been sourced for inclusion in the Wikipedia. --Born2flie 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Born, you are basing everything you've said on one assumption: that the internet transcriptions of ONE SOURCE are correct, in contradiction with a number of accepted and printed sources on the Greek language. I don't think that passes the WP:RS test. I no doubt could find alot of sources on helicopters that would make claims on how helicopters function and fly that are erroneous, and using your first-hand knowledge, you would not accept those sources, because you KNOW they are wrong! This is tantamount the same thing - we have presented language sources, but you instantly dissmissed them because they disagree with ONE SOURCE. I could find more language sources, but what's the point? I think it's time to take this discussion to WP:AIR, and get a wider input on this. At this point, I don't think were going to make any more progress, and I think WP:AIR is a better solution than an RFC or RFA. - BillCJ 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, two sources; the U.S. Government site's essay, and the paper by Professor Leishman. I use my knowledge of helicopters to vet my sources, not find sources to establish my OR. The source that I had found says that the individual credited with creating the word (information found in more than two sources) had a phrase in mind when he coined it; "spiraling wing". He derived his word using the Greek words for that phrase. But simply speculating that the wrong Greek word was used in explaining this, and then including what you personally believe to be the correct answer is blatant OR. What you need is a source that has already done that research for you, and you don't have it. We know that it isn't a spiral wing, because the wings aren't spirals or helical. He chose it to describe the motion as they rise through the air, which is why it is a spiraling wing or feather. --Born2flie 07:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a Greek verb helissō (root helik-) = "I whirl (something) round". But this is off-topic: this discussion started as "should the Greek word be transcribed into the Roman alphabet with a leading h-, or not?". Anthony Appleyard 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And, since you've disputed the word in the source, and I've disputed your subsequent changes without a historical source that your transcribed word is the correct one used by d'Amecourt, I've simply removed the reference to a Greek origin until such a time as you or I can sufficiently source a reference one way or the other. I'll be fine with a source that says that it should be your stance, but a lexicon isn't a historical source for d'Amecourt's choice of words. --Born2flie 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you want me to quote or refer to the whole body of scholarship on Ancient Greek pronunciation???
    1. The Greek root rough breathingelik- and its derivatives, is spelt starting with a rough breathing in all good scholarly sources.
    2. It is generally agreed among scholars of Ancient Greek that in Classical Greek times in the standard dialect of Ancient Greek (= Attic Greek), rough breathing was pronounced as [h].
    3. In scientific usage generally, when forming a name in Greek, the rough breathing is transcribed as "h".
    d'Amecourt may have been an expert on designing flying machines, but that does not make him an expert in Ancient Greek. Here are other blunders and solecisms perpetrated by scientists in making names in Greek:
    1. methyl (alcohol): μεθυ + `υλη = "wine-forest", but was intended as "wood(substance) - wine": wrong sort of wood, and wrong order.
    2. Eosipterus (pterosaur): "dawn/east wing": should have been "Eopterus".

Anthony Appleyard 10:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in my mind, the issue resides with d'Amecourt as a matter of history, not correct language usage. I'd prefer that you a. establish that d'Amecourt was using ancient or Koine Greek, b. that the rules of transliteration or transcription then agree with the ones you currently understand, and/or c. that the previously cited references do not accurately portray d'Amecourt's understanding of Greek, rather than asserting your own understanding of what you think he used or believe he should've used. Since it was d'Amecourt that coined the word, reportedly from Greek words, you have to establish which words he used. I will also be working to this end. --Born2flie 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Did d'Amecourt call it an "elicoptère" without H in his writings? Anthony Appleyard 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As soon as you have a source, you let me know. --Born2flie 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have corresponded with Dr. Leishman, the author of the other source I found for elikoieoas. His use of the word is directly sourced from the book by Liberatore (p.224). The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. Dr. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker after I described the dilemma. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:

It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.

"[O]ld epithet" does not necessarily indicate ancient Koine Greek. As it is, Appleyard has not established the historicity of his edits crediting d'Amecourt with using the words that he is editing into the article. --Born2flie 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If we're talking Classical Greek, then all your diacritic (aspiration mark) arguments are moot. Since they didn't come into use until after the Classical Greek period, and not into authoritative use until well after their introduction and incorporation during the Hellenistic period and the formation of Koine Greek. Are you sure you know Greek, or do you just have access to a couple of books that you quickly read through to tell you what you want to know? I looked through the edit history on Koine Greek and Classical Greek, and I don't see you on there at all, so I'm assuming that you have no problems with those articles. They must be accurate according to your knowledge of the Greek language, right?

Modern editions of Ancient Greek texts are usually written with accents and breathing marks, interword spacing, modern punctuation, and sometimes mixed case, but these were all introduced later.

i.e. it is only through the interpolation of Koine Greek that the use of such mechanisms is transferred upon Classical Greek, which existed without them. --Born2flie 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Appleyard, I cannot help it if your attempts to garner consensus for your position have not exactly met with success. The consensus has been that since you cannot and I cannot produce the actual Greek words that d'Amecourt used in coining the word helicopter, to leave the Greek references out of the article. I've provided comments. Your knowledge of Greek seems to be fleeting. First, changing the referenced word to an unreferenced word. Second, changing the word to include an "h" three weeks later with the edit summary of "I know Greek" after I had reverted the "h". Thirdly, asserting that Classical Greek uses breathing marks, which I have pointed out is disputed here on Wikipedia in the article on Classical Greek. Lastly, reverting to the dictionary etymology without historical reference that "helix" is the word used by d'Amecourt.
You attempted to take the matter to mediation, but refuse to discuss the issue here and consider the possibility that words can exist that aren't contained in your reference material, a position easily accepted by the Greek colleague of Dr. Leishman, as noted above. Both your request for mediation and your RfC are avoiding discussing this topic which is, what word did d'Amecourt use?
It was suggested that I verify the references (centennialofflight.gov and Dr. Leishman's webpage) to make sure that the word was not a typo. I have done that, in good faith, and learned that the word (elikoieoas) appears in E.K. Liberatore's book Helicopters Before Helicopters (1998) on page 224. Mr. Liberatore has 31 pages of bibliography for his book, and as soon as I have access to a library once again, I'll be more than happy to verify that source of Dr. Leishman's. In the meantime, what are you doing to establish the historicity of "helix" as the origin for d'Amecourt coining the word? --Born2flie 07:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary sub-heading

For now, as stated in my edit summaries, I think it best we leave out any of the Greek info until Born's source is confirmed. Once it is confirmed one way or the other, then we can include both versions and sources, putting the dictionary etymologies in a footnote. So while I do agree that Apple's preferred sources are legitimate and wothry of inclusion, let's give Born's source time to check the originals. - BillCJ 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment about elix / helix in the etymology of the word "helicopter"

  • Whether the Greek original of the "helic-" part of ther word "helicopter" was "helik-" or "elik-". The concensus of the evidence points to the 'h' being present. But User:Born2flie says that there was no 'h', because of one stray case when someone missed out the Greek rough breathing sign. I know Ancient Greek well and I have reference books about it. I tried mediation: see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Helicopter. Anthony Appleyard 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment. I know Ancient Greek relatively well and have a degree in Classical languages. The 'h' is undoubtedly correct. The root has a rough breathing which is normally transliterated with an 'h'. For sources I would cite the Middle Liddle mentioned above which lists many words beginning with helik (most noting that they share a root with the verb helisso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is really self-evident for anybody with a basic knowledge of Greek. Reminds me a bit of this. Helicopter is a regular compound form, coined according to the classical grammar of the language, consisting of helik-o-, the normal compound-building form of the word whose nominative singular is helix (ἕλιξ), with a rough breathing at the beginning, meaning 'spiral'; and pteron (πτερόν), meaning 'wing'. Incidentally, the initial h- in helix etymologically reflects an earlier w- (digamma), showing that hel- (< wel-) is ultimately related to Latin volvo ('turn') and English well. Source: Babiniotis, Lexiko tis neoellinikis glossas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the historicity of the spelling with the breathing, the h- sound was in fact originally written as a separate letter H in ancient Greek in its pre-classical orthography. Second, some dialects of Greek Ionic) started h-dropping and when they had lost the sound, they re-used the letter for something else (the vowel letter Eta). Third, the writing systems of these dialects was taken over by others (Attic) that still had the sound in pronunciation, leading to the need to invent a new graphical symbol for it. This was, at first, a half "H", which then developed into the diacritic symbol as we now know it. Fourth, h-dropping reached those dialects too, leaving them with a diacritic symbol that no longer corresponded to anything phonetic. But in classical Attic, the "h" was undoubtedly still there. This is all very basic and well known. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Historicity referring to how the word was historically formed by the person who coined the word, not the historicity of the Greek language. Thanks for misunderstanding the context of the discussion which lies directly above this RfC and the comments from the native Greek speaker with Greek expert friends back in his native land. --Born2flie 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And something else, the alleged word quoted above elikoieoas, is an obvious misspelling, the intended word that means spiral-like is helikoeidēs (ἑλικοειδής), where the second component is from eidos (εἴδος 'kind'). It is relatively easy to mistake the Greek letter delta for a Latin a or o, I suppose. -oieoas is just complete bullocks, it doesn't resemble any existing Greek word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
More refs:
  • Seebold, Elmar (1995), Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, Berlin, p. 369; quoting in turn:
  • Cottez, Henri (1980), Dictionnaire des structures du vocabulaire savant,, Paris, p.181; and:
  • Carstensen, P. and Busse, U. (1993), Anglizismen-Wörterbuch, Berlin, Vol 2, p. 640.
The scope of these works, both Cottez and Carstensen/Busse, makes it clear that they deal explicitly with issues relating to the structural sources of modern coinages.
Seebold's explanation (my translation from German) is: "[...] from French hélicoptère, which is a neoclassical formation from Greek hélix, -ikos 'vortex' (and other meanings) and Greek pterón 'flyer'."
HTH, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Codice Atlantico

I removed the reference to the Codice Atlantico (Codex Atlanticus) because Da Vinci did not write the codex. It was assembled from his notebooks by Pompeo Leoni.[6] Since the information was not germaine to the history of the helicopter, I didn't correct it, but instead cut it from the article. --Born2flie 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Linemen?

I know that helicopters are used to inspect lines and to transport linemen to repair and clean components on high voltage transmission lines, but does this section merit inclusion in an article about helicopters?:

Linemen

Main article: Lineman (occupation)#What they do

Electric power transmission companies are now using linemen in helicopters to perform repairs to high-voltage wires. The lineman, wearing a "hotsuit" with steel wires sewn into the lining, sitting on the outside of the helicopter, uses a special rod to connect himself and the helicopter to the still-energized line, in a process called "bonding on," the lineman energizes himself and the helicopter so that he can now work on the wire safely, in the same way a bird can perch on a high-tension line and not be electrocuted. The lineman is protected by his suit and the fact that he is bonded to and protected from the circuit in the same way as if he was inside a faraday cage.

  • Opposed - I don't think this section talks about helicopters other than a mention that the lineman sits on the outside of one and bonds himself and the helicopter so he can do his job --Born2flie 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That doesn't sound like a major, common use now to me. Just add the main link under 'Other uses' and leave out the text. -Fnlayson 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems reasonably noteworthy to me. Anthony Appleyard 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have requested a Peer Review for this article. The first reviewer had these comments:

  • To start off, the intro is great. The rest that could use a little work, not much though.
  • The history section is almost written like a list. Almost each paragraph starts with "In 19XX..." (in fact two paragraphs in a row start "In 1906..."). More variety is required.
  • The Uses section needs an intro before jumping right into subsections.
  • The Hazards section needs more info, not just links in a list.

So, we're looking at the History, Uses, and the Hazards section requiring some reworking. --Born2flie 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section looks awfully large.

Perhaps we should make a new article called History of helicopters, opinions? TheBlazikenMaster 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the History section is that large at this point. Perhaps it could be expanded more, but I don't really know. Perhaps we could look at the whole article, especially those areas with linked articles, and see if some sections could be trimmed. - BillCJ 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look that large if it is written in prose. User:Anthony Appleyard made it more of a list because he felt it helped people find a specific date/inventor/event easier than a prose format (which is more fitting for an encyclopedic article). See discussion above. --Born2flie 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are for people to get information from, and to me, the best form for an encyclopedia is the clearest format to look for information in, even if that means a table instead of essay-type prose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Which totally ignores WP:MOS beyond the intent of WP:IGNORE. Care to show us an FA-Class article that has a History section laid out as you have unilaterally edited this one? --Born2flie (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the comments from the peer review, I'm for reconverting it to straight prose. I know the aritcle will never advance to FA-status, if even past B-class, with lists in sections that aren't normally listed. If Anthony doesn't like it, he's free to file arbitration against me this time. If you want to work on a prose version elsewhere (or have it all ready, I'll add the prose in place of the list so my involvement is clear, if you'd like. - BillCJ 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
See my Sandbox article. There are some recent additions to the namespace article, mostly model makers who may or may not have contributed to the body of aerodynamic knowledge about helicopters, and otherwise appear to have done little to further the development. So, those have not been added into the history on my sandbox page. --Born2flie 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep it needs some subsections like that or something by time/years. -Fnlayson 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Also taken care of in my Sandbox article, although I'd like to rename one. There is a text comment to indicate so. --Born2flie 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I added some subsections in the article based on your sandbox article. It's a start. Adjust as needed. -Fnlayson 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe add another subsection label for "modern helicopters" or something like that and convert the lists back to paragraph form. -Fnlayson 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

External links.

What I don't understand is why can't we have an external link to a website about "how to become a helicopter pilot"? I mean, they are useful for many people looking for information about helicopters. And I know it's useful for people that wants to learn to fly a helicopter. So my question is why not? Surely there must be websites somewhere that tell a lot more than "HowTo". TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually, it is because such links are commercial in nature and violate the guideline for WP:EL. --Born2flie 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Born2flie. - BillCJ 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with this back and forth on AeroEngineer2008's external link? Does it break a link rule?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The deal is that it has been removed from the External links section for almost a year and continually gets edited back in. The site is primarily to showcase an individual's designs in aeronautics and it has been suspected that its continued inclusion in the articles it is linked from on Wikipedia is for self-promotion and violates WP:COI. When the COI concerns have been raised in the edit history, the editor(s) who insert the link appear to wait a period of time before attempting to reinsert the link without a justification for why the link contributes to the article. Simply because it has a tool that the editor thinks might be useful to someone, doesn't really meet the intent of WP:EL. Long story short, the site is a self-promotion site for Michael Duffy and his designs and the continued insistence in a link's inclusion in an article without justification for how it contributes to the article implies a conflict of interest. --Born2flie (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur. A reading of the site shows that it is a promotional page for a piece of analytical software. We're not here to provide advertising for software. What the editor in question also doesn't seem to understand is that having a link here will not help his site gain prominence on search engines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious. I think these things should be mentioned here so that newcomers understand the context when future instances occur.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Born, Akradeki,

I suppose you are used to being spammed to death, so you are constantly on the defensive. I accept your decision to remove the link; I however, believe that 90% of what I C on wikipedia, including the Rotorcraft and Helicopter articles have promotion for companies and products all over them. My intent is not to promote and therefore withdraw my request for inclusion. I don't care about search engines, and page rank, I thought this would be helpful for others. I personally use wikipedia for tools and advice for design, so thought this would be helpful. --AeroEngineer2008 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Juan de la Cierva and the helicopter

Trekphiler tagged the statement, "In 1923, the rotorcraft that became the basis for the modern helicopter began to take shape, in the form of an autogyro." I have inserted "rotor" after "modern helicopter" to clarify. Focke had extensive experience with C.19 and C.30 autogyros prior to building the Fw 61 and the Fa 223, Flettner had designed and built the Fl 184 autogyro prior to designing the Fl 282 Kolibri, and it was Cierva's advances that inspired Breguet to return to rotorcraft and the helicopter after early disappointments. It is not intended to show the autogyro as ancestral, despite the fact that the helicopter has eclipsed the autogyro, but rather that that the helicopter owes the design of the rotor system that made it successful to Cierva's successful development of the autogyro. The two are inextricably linked through Cierva. --Born2flie 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing that. The simple addition of 'rotor' makes a big difference. -Fnlayson 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertical helo image

A helicopter tilting almost vertically close to Chalet du Nant-Borrat.
A helicopter tilting almost vertically close to Chalet du Nant-Borrat.
Alternative cropped image
Alternative cropped image

I think this is a good image, but at thumb size the helicopter is too small and difficult to distinguish from the background. If the image was cropped more, say about half as wide as it is now with the helicopter centered it would be a fine image, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As a thumb, which is how the pic will appear and "participate" in this article, I don't think it is a good pic at all. Why is the pic being placed in the article? Is it being used to illustrate a point in the article, or is it just being placed into the article because it is of a helicopter and all helicopter pictures are "useful" for illustration? Editors should, by nature, be discriminatory towards what goes in an article. Even if someone thinks it is a neat picture, it has to have a purpose in the article and not just be included because someone thought it was neat. I didn't put half the pictures in, and I've trimmed more than a couple out, because they were in the article...just because. And "just because" isn't a good enough guideline or criterion. --Born2flie (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who uploaded this image and in fact added it into the article. The point with this picture is pretty obvious, it shows a helicopter tilting almost vertically and preparing to drop into the valley below - a great example of the versatility of the helicopter. What Fnlayson said is rightful to me but I disagree with Born2flie; in the section it was added (Helicopter#Controlling flight), the picture demonstrated something important, that is, helicopters are very versatile aircraft. I have cropped the image more and uploaded to Commons as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertical_helicopter_crop.JPG. If no arguments until tomorrow, I will add it. --85.220.49.145 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I consider that a weak argument, since what makes a helicopter versatile is not tilting vertically to drop into a valley. Now, you uploaded the image, so, of course, you feel that it belongs in the article. And you agree with Jeff that if it was cropped it could be included. Neither of these are a surprise. Again, not really what was being discussed in the Image choice and placement section of WP:Images. The article already has a picture with two helicopters doing acrobatic flying. Additionally, the helicopter in the image you intend to add isn't focused very well, and this becomes even more apparent when the full-size picture is viewed. Compared to the HAL Dhruv aerobatic picture, which, when viewed full-size, shows even greater detail because the focus is good. So, even if you meant "agility" instead of versatility, there is already a better quality picture in place to represent that. And one of the Dhruv helicopters even appears to be tilted even more vertically, almost perpendicular. --Born2flie (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- One of those images (probably later) would be a better fit in the helicopter model article (not sure what type it is). Depending on the number and quality of images in that article already of course. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like an A350 Squirrel. - BillCJ (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Born on all his points. In addition, I think the image is attractive to the user partly because of the striking scenery. However, there are so many possible pics available to place in this article that we can't have pics primarily for decoration. We have to have some limits, and usefulness to the text, image quality, and the availability of more-appropriate pics must be considered first. DOn't let this discourage you, however. People disagree with my all the time - and Born seems to think it's his job here to disagree with me! ;)
Well, all right then. I rest my case. --85.220.49.145 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Those pics are interesting, but this could happen everywhere. Most photos have descreption in the same corner as the photo can be seen in the article about where the photo takes place. And what's more useful link the name of the location, this is an encyclopedia, and while reading people that don't know crap about something want to click the word to know more. The first helicopter photo here tells where the photo is from, but doesn't link any word, I really think it should link some words. I agree that those photos should go to another page that's also about helicopters instead of the main helicopter page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The images here are for illustration purposes. Details aren't needed. Adding links to the captions can be an overlinking issue if the links are in text too. And propr spelin not reqired on talk pagges. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're assuming I'm thinking about linking the entire sentense, you're wrong. I'm just thinking about linking when relevant, for example when the pic says A photo taken in the nature of New York I woud like New York and it will be like: A photo taken in the nature of New York. And I don't think it's overlinking since there are people that know nothing about the stuff and want to click to learn more. Proper Grammar might not be a requirement, but I find it very important to use Proper English, I don't wanna type like a total jackass. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, I wasn't thinking about linking an entire caption, just things that might have been linked in text already. Captions don't have to be complete sentences. Be Bold and link what you think is lacking... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks

In the case of fantail and fenestron these TM marks are properly used by WikiMS standards, because they are separate designs owned by different companies. I read the Manual of Style and it should be indicated. These are brand name systems.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTM#General rules: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). That seems pretty clear that they aren't to be used. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, we are distinguishing among brands of ducted rotor systems. It is for context, otherwise only ducted fan should be used. But it's your articles, do as you see fit.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not my article - if it was, it would look alot differrent, beginning with the silly TOC on the right! No one owns wikipeida articles, tho we may live on some pages! And I have reverted you a second time, have I? I won't unless the consensus is to remove the TM marks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
♠ Well I figured you must be angry with me about the article, because I'm working on it and you come blazing through making changes like I'm interfering here somehow. I can go work on other articles, it don't make me no nevermind. Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, I'm not angry. I just go down my watchlist and review changes as I come to them. If I stomped your edits, I'm sorry. I have over 3400 articles on my watchlist, and a bad memory, so it's better for me to just deal with pages as I come to them on the list. For future reference, you might consider using the {{inuse}} header tag on an article when you're making a series of changes over a period of time (say 20 mins to an hour). I'm using one the tag now at Cessna 172, if you want to see it in action. I'm shuffling pics around, and having to preview each move to see how it looks, and that's takes awhile. - BillCJ (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just went in and changed the whole Cessna page. haha J/K. Never knew about that inuse tag. I'll have to make a note of that one.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hovercraft, not helicopter?

I have looked at the "helicopter" Leonardo Da Vinci invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A hovercraft uses its fans to trap air in a air cushion, hence the alternate term "air-cushion vehicle". Clearly, this is not what Da Vinci's design did. It used a spinning spiral to try to create lift. While not a very efficent design, it is accepted as as ancestor of the modern helicopter by most, if not all, aerodynamicists. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a helicopter. His hovercraft did NOT create a pressure differencil. And his spining spiral is just a type of fan which did create an air cushion. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to add...

I found something that could be added to the history section, although I'm not sure of the exact source: "A slovenian blacksmith Vinko Kristan used his free time to create a flying machine, his own version of a helicopter, as far back as 1926. His inquisitive neighbours called the contraption the "samofrč", meaning self-flyer. It was composed of a piramid shaped body, made of wood and canvas, on the top of which a propeller was mounted. It was moved using pedals and had another smaller propeller on the side used as a stabilizing device. It flew about half a meter to one meter above the ground, it's said that one night it even went over one meter. It couldn't have been of much practical use however, because it probably required aggressive pedaling." 195.210.207.174 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That can't be added here without a valid reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find the exact source and post it here. 195.210.248.139 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)