Talk:Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota/Archive 1

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)

Bell 210
Bell never submitted the 210 for this program. 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 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)

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. 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)

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:
 * The articles contain duplicate information
 * 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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

actually its german designed and originates from 1979. originally by DASA which is now Eurocopter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.94.16 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is neither unusual nor controversial for the USA to buy foreign equipment - what is unusual however is when the US military buys whole systems as in this case. Controversy however only arises since the american suppliers cannot keep up quality-wise against their european rivals, which means their only hope is to resort to lobbyism and political bantering.


 * Best example in this case would be the accusation that the UH-72A has two stretchers but not enough room for two medics - but the original RFP only called for ONE stretcher and one medic, which means the UH-72A actually robustly superseded that requirement.


 * As in the case of the KC-X, the "controversy" only began when the US contenders realized they cannot sell all of their old rubbish to the military any longer.84.58.223.193 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note per WP:Talk page guidelines this page is for improving the article, and is not a discussion forum. -fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Sure it did. That was EADS's name for the helicopter before it was named UH-72.  See "EADS North America to Offer the UH-145 " (press release).  I changed it back, clarified and added that as a reference. - Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * I have removed the same picture again now claimed by AQMD as his/her own work as File:UH-72A Lakato Heli.jpg and File:UH-72Alfa.jpg. It has been reversed and photo-shopped in a similar technique to banned user User:ANigg. Interested why two different users insist on claiming it as their own and keep trying to add it to this article! MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I recognized it but did not think about this discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Armed Scout version
EADS North America has teamed up with Lockheed Martin on a "Armed Scout 645". It will use the EC145/UH-72 airframe. An example of the 645 was displayed at a recent Army convention. More info:. Since the EC 145 article is mainly civilian content, what about a a brief variant entry on this here? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur that is it better covered here for the time being. Looks like the EADS model number is EC 645. If the model is offered to other customers, we would then make a page for that model, and/or the US version of the EC 645. - BillCJ (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Related to the Armed Scout competition, which is delayed for 18 months (for now, anyway), is this. I'll try to add something on the X2 LTH to the Sikorsky X2 article later today/tonight. - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not find a mention of EC with the 645 in Eurocopter or Euro NA's press releases so I used AS 645 like some of its other military helos. I read about the X2 version a day or two ago but had not seen a picture.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The AS as used by EC NA, refers to the armed scout mission rather than a throwback to the Aerospatiale designations. Much like they did with the UH-145 marketing designation. I agree that the aircraft is better covered here, but only for the meantime because I do not see the EC 645 being the next big thing in the Army. The armed scout program may not require a COTS airframe in the future, especially if any further RFI does not yield a favorable response from industry. If it was me, I'd ask for the helicopter equivalent of the F-22 engine, supercruise without afterburner, essentially efficient fuel consumption for greater endurance. Say, an HTS-900-2 at or better than Rolls-Royce 250 consumption rates. And I know the AS645 can't accomplish that with a 2,200-pound MEP. --Born2flie (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being that it is Eurocopter, they may well offer the EC645 to other nations, if they get enough interest from outside the US. For the msot part, the UH-72 seems to be quite a success, but the current Congress is quite protectionistic. In the end, they'll buy American made rubber band-powered mini-helicopterss, and those will still be too expensive! I hope for change. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

UH-72 overheating issue
"During flight tests in Southern California in mild 80-degree weather, cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104 degrees, the point at which the Army says the communication, navigation, and flight-control systems can overheat and shut down."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/10/new_army_helicopters_have_heat_flaw/

(217.93.137.222 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC))


 * "Disaster" is an overstatement, especially since that story is over 2 years old, and may have been an old story even then. I believe those problems have been addressed. but I don't have a source in front of me. It should not be too hard to find if true. - BilCat (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found one source so far with some updated info, which is at the bottom of the page. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also note that this has been covered in the article, in the Operational history section. And no, it's not called a "disaster" there. - BilCat (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, the overheating issues has been in the article for some time. I believe they added cooling units that are optional on EC 145.  The latter part needs to be stated and cited in the text though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. As I understand it, A/C is standard on the civil EC145s, but the Army generally does not use A/C, and didn't think it was necessary when they ordered the type. I believe air vent changes solved most of the cooling problems in average weather, while A/C was to be installed on aircraft likely to be used in hot environments or for medevac missions (all within the US). This is in no way a "design flaw" as reported in some of the forums I saw today while searching on this, but rather an issue due to customer preference that is not normally encountered in civil models. Standard teething problem with a straightforward solution. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I updated the article text using the Defense Industry Daily reference to update the article. Thanks for finding that Bill. Adjust/update my wording if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job! The DID report was the only one I cound find with a cursory glance t=at the links on the firt search page. The rest were reprints of the original story, or forums talking about the original story. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Change page title
Does anyone know how to change the display page title? I work for EADS North America, which is the prime contractor on this program (feel free to reference www.uh-72a.com). Eurocopter is a division of EADS but not the prime in this case. I appreciate any help that can be provided. I do not want to italicize the title, rather, just change it. More challenging than it looks. Nightskybear (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are actually two issues here. The first is a technical one in that page titles can only be changed using the "Move page" process. This is fully explained at Moving a page. If you have any further questions on the techniques and process of moving a page, you may ask at my talk page, User talk:BilCat.


 * The second issue is whether or not the page should be moved. Technically, you are correct that EADS NA is the prime contractor, and in most cases the prime contractor (or a short version of its name) is listed as the manufacturer in WP aircraft article titles. WP titles are governed by the Article titles guideline, which basically states that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Additionally, WikiProject Aircraft (WP:AIR) has guidelines at Naming conventions (aircraft), which are an attempt to standardize how aircraft airticles are named on WP. Normally, aircraft articles are named by the Manufacturer-Designation-Name (M-D-N) format.


 * The Common names section of WP's Naming conventions states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Eurocopter is of course the manufacturer of the Eurocopter EC145, and the UH-72 is a minimum-change version of that aircraft. As such, the common name given for the manufacturer is usually just "Eurocopter", and of course the UH-72 itself is assembled by American Eurocopter. That's why we chose to use "Eurocopter" as the manufacturer for the UH-72.


 * As you probably realize by now, WP operates by Consensus, so you need to build a consensus here on this talk page to move the page to EADS North America UH-72 Lakota. That can be done informally, as we are doing now with this discussion. To gain broader input, a formal move request can be made through Requested moves, which involves adding a Move Request section to an article's talk page when the move is contested or controversial, which this is. I can help you to do that here, if you decide after reading my explanation here that you still wan thte article move.


 * To build a consensus, you need to present your reasons as to why your preferred title is better. If you can find print and online published sources from major aviation periodicals and sites which consistently refer to the aircraft's manufacturer as "EADS North America" or similar (EADS NA for example), then that would help your case here.


 * I hope that helps! - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)