Talk:UH-72 Lakota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history 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 regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
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
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Need Help

I've created the page but it's clearly not exactly well presented :) If someone could clean it up i'd be very grateful (being completely new at this I don't want to screw it up completely). Also if someone could insert citations for sources because again I have no idea how to atm :O Thanks for the assistance..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta Face (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bell 210

Bell never submitted the 210 for this program. [1] They were attempting to expedite the 210 FAA certification in order to use it as their submission. Instead, they offered the Bell 412 due to its proven record and dual engine design to match the other aircraft being considered. I do not believe this [dual engine design] was the sole reason, but I remember that the FAA certification was a prime factor. At no time did they offer the 214 for this contract bid. There were only 4 submissions for the contract, although MDHI's LUH website[2] makes a case against both the Bell 210 and the Bell 412EP. (Born2flie 03:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

This is some great backround on the selection process-the previous information had been based on Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/luh.htm). By all means update the article with this, as the initital listing was preliminary. A75 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

As the UH-72A is really a EC145 I would suggest this article is merged with the Eurocopter EC145 article before we end up with two identical articles.MilborneOne 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both these aircraft are the BK-117-C. But since Eurocopter bought out Bolkow, they get to call it whatever they want, I guess. Wikipedia:merge shows you how to recommend merging articles. (Born2flie 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Merge -- On second thought, I'm going to agree with you. Other than radios and kits, there will be very little modification to the standard production EC145 to create this helicopter. (Born2flie 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Don't Merge-- In time the UH-72 will be loaded with info that have no need to be on EC-145 article, such U.S. Army developments with it, aircraft accidents, etc. I especially oppse this if LUH is also going to be merged into it, as the LUH info is only tagentially relevant to the EC-145. A75 15:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge, Part II

  • Merge -- I recommend that the U.S. Army Light Utility Helicopter Program article be merged into this article since the significance of the program is the aircraft that is selected. (Born2flie 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
Born2flie: I have reinitiated this recommendation to merge U.S. Army Light Utility Helicopter Program article into this article. The reasons:
  1. The articles contain duplicate information
  2. With the selection of the UH-72 (EC 145) as the program winner, the U.S. Army Light Utility Helicopter Program article will not grow, since the program has now become the UH-72 Lakota program. --19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - Especially not if UH-72 is merged into EC-145, as all the information on a Army program is not highly relevant to the EC-145. If the UH-72 is not merged, then it might be reasonable depending how it is done. A75 15:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge, Part III

  • Merge --- The LUH page should include the UH-72A data. The UH-72A is now the LUH. I would recommend keeping it distinct from the EC-145 page, as it is different in some ways from the base EC-145 (BK 117C2) in the areas of avionics and specific mission kits.
  • Don't Merge --- LUH was a military program not a aircraft, its not in the same category. The LUH's page point of focus - the other contenders and the competition itself -don't hold the same relevancy to the helicopter article. Putting everything together will restrict each subjects growth. LUH program details will suffer, as they won't be seen as relevant to the operational and technical traits of a aircraft. A75 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --- The LUH page should be merged into the UH-72 page, as both pages are rather short at this time. The LUH program is over (as it was won by the EC145), so there will be no new developments in the program which are not related to the UH-72. Any extended information related to the other LUH contestants should be put under their respective pages. The UH-72 page should remain separate from the EC145 page. (Posted 19:47, September 29, 2006) by BillCJ 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

By my count, we have 4 for merging with the LUH article, and 2 against. It has been well over a month since the last post, so I am proceeding with the merger. - BillCJ 07:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge completed

With the new information the article has filled out well, though we could use some recent pics. I also added some other features, and revamped the related content. This was my second attempt at merging, as I had accidently closed almost an hour's work at 1:30am without saving it first. So there may be some errors I didn't catch the second time. The Specs are not an "error"; they are copied from another article, and I have not had time to update them as yet. I hope to get them done by this weekend, but all I have are EC145 specs. Thanks.

Born2flie, I saw your work on your sepaate LUH project, esp re: the early LHX development. May I have your permission to use some of it in the article? Thanks either way. - BillCJ 07:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I had responded to this last night. Yes, you may use that paragraph. I believe it was an Army or GAO source I got it from. I will try to remember to look. I will caution that I can't remember if I paraphrased or cut and pasted that particular paragraph.
--Born2flie 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may have some sources that verify some of the info, and I'll try to cite those. I'll paraphrase what I can anyway. I remeber reading about most of it years ago, so I'm confident of it's reliability, though that's not enough for Wiki's standard of verifiability. We'll make it work. - BillCJ 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakota

Does someone have an official source for the new name, such as an press release? The only think I found on Google was on a forum. I'm hesitant to change the name based on that. Seems a bit premature to go changing the article text based on unconfirmed reports to this point. - BillCJ 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I finally found a press release for the new name on the US Army website [3]. I have renamed the article as UH-72 Lakota. The usual naming convention for US military aircraft is just the basic designation (no variant letter after the number, except for a different article, such as F/A-18E/F, of CH-53E) and popular name. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Redux

This article was merged with U.S. Army Light Utility Helicopter Program page on Nov. 23, 2006. The original page was reinstated on Dec. 10, 2006 with no discussion here on the issue.

We've already been through the merge discussion process, and a decision was made. As there has been no further discussion on recreating the article, I have reverted it back to a redirect page. I would have done this sooner, but it was not on my watch list (my mistake). Please abide by the consensus on this until further discussion achieves a new consensus. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When I did the merge, I took great care to keep most of the content from the other article, including both pictures. The pic of the AW139 was later removed by another user, but I have no problem with it being put back in, is so desired. - BillCJ 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] controversy

Traditionally it's unusual and controversal for the U.S. military to 'buy foreign'. Did this not happen in this case or is it not mentioned? 145.253.108.22 09:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

UH-72 is a foreign design built in the United States by the North American division of the company. There is at least one other instance (more than likely more) where the U.S. military purchased foreign produced products, although, technically, this product is only foreign designed but produced in-country (made in the USA). --Born2flie 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] UH-145

The naming UH-145 simply doesn't exist. There's only a EC-145 or a UH-72, but there is no UH-145. I've changed that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.65.165 (talk • contribs)

[edit] UH-72 Pic

Bill! Please leave the pic alone ANigg has got it right, possible unfree isn't definite, as far as I can see its fine, (better than fine) but enough, stop this back and fourth picture pushing. I don't want to have send you a Vandalism.AQMD (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The current picture Image:UH-72A Lakota.jpg added by User:ANigg has a bit of an iffy license unless ANigg is the same person as Lt. Terence Hopkins this will probably get deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What Milborne wrote. Don't make threats. That's not the way to work things out... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, ANigg's name is "Andrew Nigg", at least that is what he has been claiming in order to keep his username, as there has been some objection to it for obvious reasons. As such, it can't be "self-made". Although I am sure that he means well, Andrew has had trouble with getting licenses right before. The key is to ask for help once someone points out there might be a problem so you can get it right, not to stubbornly keep adding the pic back while experimenting with changing the license until one "sticks". Copyrights are a serious legal issue, and aren't something to play around with. Although I don't know alot about it, I do know there are plenty of editors who can help out if one will just ask for help. Also, if you're going to re-add the pic, there's no reason to delete a public domain one, especially since there is no other pic of the UH-72 in the article. I'll stop removing "your" pic, but the consequences are all yours to bear, Andrew. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The image might be considered a work of the US government if Lt. Terence Hopkins (US military) took the picture. I'm not sure if that has to be done in an official capacity or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)