Talk:Boeing Vertol YUH-61

Boeing?
Why isn't this article named Boeing-Vertol YUH-61? --Born2flie 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, good question. Probably because that was the redlink I used from a designation sequence list on another helicopter page when I created the article. (It's the same way with the Boeing XCH-62.) It never occured to me to use Boeing-Vertol in the title, tho I usually prefer using shorter titles anyway. The major BV/BH products have popular names (CH-46 and CH-47), so it's not an issue there. As to other Boeing products, we use Boeing 747, etc., not Boeing Commercial Airplanes 747. If you think it's that big a deal in this case, go ahead and move it. I don't support it, but I won't revert it or interfere either. - BillCJ 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this aircraft was simply never named the Boeing YUH-61. Odd that we can agree to name an article Schweizer (Hughes) 300 to show continuity of the designing and initial production company but we might have a problem with Boeing-Vertol. According to the Boeing Helicopters article, the name prior to 1987 was Boeing-Vertol and the Vertol products are commonly referred to as the Boeing-Vertol Model 107 and 109. All references that might be used to develop this article are going to reference Boeing-Vertol and this article itself refers to Boeing-Vertol...(ad nauseum) We're not talking about an aircraft that was solely built and designed by the aircraft manufacturer Boeing (e.g. Boeing 747), Vertol Aircraft was a company purchased and renamed to Boeing-Vertol (not Boeing) and operated just as Bell Helicopters and Sikorsky Aircraft do; subsidiary companies of their respective parent corporation. It just happens that this parent corporation began life as an aircraft manufacturer. Anyways, Boeing-Vertol is the manufacturer's common name and I just feel it should be used in accordance with the naming convention. Sorry if my question offended you. --Born2flie 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not offended at all. Anyway, I explained that I hadn't thought about it when I named it. And you can change it if you really want to, I honestly don't care what it's named. I'm not going to support the change, but I won't oppose it either. I don't think you need to run a poll on this, as we're probably the only users who know the article exists! Just move it; I won't revert it.


 * I've tried to think of examples other than the XCH-62, but I can't. You might want to change those links too, as I hope to find enough info to make an article on it in the future. I think the XCH-62 is mentioned in the CH-47 article, so we might redirct the link there for now. - BillCJ 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man cameo?
In the Iron Man movie of 2008, there is more than one scene showing the entrance to the arc reactor laboratory. Outside, there is a courtyard with some vehicles and an olive green helicopter near the gate. I may be mistaken, but I believe that that is the YUH-61's mockup. Am I right? If so, I believe it deserves comment here as a "popular culture" reference. SrAtoz (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. @BillCJ: I, too, know of this article: I specifically searched for it in the hopes of finding an Iron Man reference! (Though I must admit: this makes some three of us who are possibly the only wiki editors to know of the helicopter...)


 * Do you have the time frame info for the appearance in the film? Or access to a screenshot? If it's not obvious that the helicopter is a YUH-61, such as having that designation painted visibly on the aircraft, we'd probably need a reliable source stating that it was a mock-up of the YUH-61. (Formerly BillCJ) - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)