Talk:PZL W-3 Sokół

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Merging

Why? Those are copletly different constructions, build by different manufacters and in different countries... Radomil talk 09:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) There was Mi-3 - version of Mi-1. Soviet proposition to reuse this designation in cooperative Polsish-Soviet helicopter Mi-3 fall. All those machines were named W-3. My proposition is rather to delete Mi-3 article. Radomil talk 09:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Then it is not true that Mil Mi-3 is an early code name for Swidnik PZL W-3 Sokół (Falcon) also known as the Anakonda helicopter? I mean that is what someone wrote in that article... If it is an early code we could just mention that and delete Mil Mi-3. --Francisco Valverde 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Seems Corran.pl and Radomil cannot agree on what information goes where and why.

Hey, Corran.pl, moving the information back to where it was in the article is not vandalism. Radomil has a complaint against where you are placing the information in the article based on what his sources say.

I have added information’s abut W-3PL and W-3CSAR (just like most of W-3 article), and Radomil started this edit war (instead of using discussion). I was only moving that information’s back to the place were they were posted. Most of the variants in Prototypes and proposals never existed but Głuszec is real, is flying [1] [2] and was ordered by Polish Army (as an upgrade of W-3W/W-3WA fleet). Corran.pl 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who moved what first, it is not vandalism. When it turns into an edit war, someone should please realize that it needs to be discussed and bring it here and talk it out, assuming good faith on the part of the other editor. --Born2flie 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Radomil, maybe talking here in the Talk space will help find an end to the disagreement? --Born2flie 00:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know W-3PL is not production variant but program of modernisation in stage of prototype. So it's place is with prototypes. Radomil talk 08:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as you know? So you have no source on that? Over 20 W-3PL were already ordered according to Nowa Technika Wojskowa Magazine. Corran.pl 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it still in the prototype stage or is it in production and being delivered to military units, and can you provide some English references? This is the English Wikipedia, after all, and it would help the editors handicapped with only speaking English, such as myself, to help with this kind of dispute.
No, I can not prove the existence of Głuszec in English sources, nor I can not provide prove (in English) of other variants (like W-3W, W-3RL etc.) so probably this whole article should be deleted. Is this your way of thinking? Corran.pl 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not want to delete it. I know that the W-3 exists, I've seen them and sat in one in Iraq (have a picture somewhere). The one policy that the English Wiki has that seems to cause the most problems with the multi-lingual editors is verifiability. Other editors and even readers have to be able to verify that the information you're placing in the article is valid. The name of a book or magazine (that you have provided for Radomil), or even a weblink, but it should be something that english readers can understand. I will keep looking for just such a link, both to help the article and to help you and Radomil come to an understanding. --Born2flie 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would like to request that "Głuszec" and other obviously polish words be translated after their first use in the article, just as it is for "Sokół" ("falcon"). This will make the article much more valuable for any readers who don't know Polish words. --Born2flie 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
done Corran.pl 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Born2flie 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of W-3PL and W-3CSAR

Currently, I have found this reference that gives only the serial number of a prototype (modified W-3WA) under the Gluszec upgrade program.[3] Pictures of this serial number can be seen here, as well as the link above from Corran.pl. I would say that this firmly establishes the W-3PL as a flying prototype. --Born2flie 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL Check who is author of this article at scramble wiki (just like all Polish related articles at scramble wiki). 0901 is flying and is passing tests and will be delivered to army this year. I have not officially confirmed information (from friend that works in PZL-Świdnik) that second copter is under rebuild process and will be prototype of W-3CSAR.
The "Głuszec" program is nothing new here you have article from 2004 form Polish Military Magazine Raport-WTO (in Polish but you should recognize date and the phase "głuszec"). Shortly father that the program was classified (no info on project for 3 years). In fact the origins of Głuszec should be dated few years earlier. Around half of the years ago spotters spotted something that could be only effect of głuszec program and Nowa Technica Wojskowa Magazine published article about technical details of Głuszec. Officially "Głueszc" is still classified but as can you see for yourself (picture, video from local news) it definitely exists (the differences between głuszec and W-3W are clearly visible). The project most likely will be officially reviled in September for MSPO Kielce Military Expo. As you see I'm really into it and I'm posting only information’s that I'm sure of.
Like I said before most of variants listed in "Prototypes and proposals" never existed like W-3B Jastrząb, W-3L Sokół Long or nasalized W-3U Aligator - we got SH-2G instead. The only copters from listed there that existed were primitive prototypes armed with ATGM (but the ATGMs system were installed separately - not integration with helicopter avionics when "Głuszec" features totally new, all digital avionic system. Corran.pl 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we rename Prototypes and proposals to Proposals and leave W-3CSAR there, with W-3L and W-3U, until it goes into prototype. Create Prototypes and move W-3PL to that section along with all other aircraft that achieved prototype status. Then, when W-3PL goes into production, move it to the production variants section, and when the W-3CSAR prototype is verified, move that to the Prototypes section. So, we should have two new groups from one old group:

  • Prototypes
    • W-3K
    • W-3U
    • W-3PL
  • Proposals
    • W-3B
    • W-3L
    • W-3MS
    • W-3U-1
    • W-3WB
    • W-3WS
    • W-3CSAR

I think this would work because it is based on your information and it will remove those variants that you don't feel equal to W-3PL because they never achieved a prototype and Radomil won't move the information anymore because he won't see a prototype listed with the production variants. --Born2flie 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All variants listed in Prototypes and proposals were never adopted by armed forces and/or civil customers. All other were. I had your arguments in mind and made some changes - I think that you should be satisfied. Is it ok now?Corran.pl 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good change! Let us know when the W-3PL is announced for production and I will help you find some english references and links. --Born2flie 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)