Talk:Revolution Mini-500

Number built
Just a thought on the number built - I presume that the company only produced kits and not complete flying helicopters - they are all categorised as amateur-built on the register. Should we adjust the text accordingly? MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ref for the statement that the aircraft was available as a factory-built is actually Taylor and was entered by you, so perhaps you could check the ref and see what it says? My refs all say "kits only", including Armstrong's pretty extensive flight review. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ref says can be factory-assembled, this may be a licensing fiddle when they let the kit purchaser amateur-build their helicopter in the factory! with a little help. Tweaked the entry slightly to say 500 kits sold in the text to match the infobox. Taylor says they had orders/deposits for 364 kits in April 1995. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a bit vague, isn't it? There seems to be no evidence of factory-completed aircraft and I am not sure under what category they could have been built legally as the aircraft is too heavy for the US FAR 103 ultralight cat, with its 254 lb empty weight. I have changed the lead para as well to match! - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Millennium MH-1 to Revolution Mini-500 I propose this merger as it is just a modificiation of the Mini-500, and the content would improve the Mini-500 article--Petebutt (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this subject up, I think it is worth discussing. I did carefully consider whether the MH-1 should just be added to the Mini-500 article or made into a stand alone article, when I started the MH-1 article. I agree that it could be done either way, but my main reasons for making it a stand-alone article were:
 * There was enough information in the refs to create a credible stand alone article
 * The aircraft replaces so many parts on the original Mini-500 that it is predominantly a new design
 * The FAA approved it as a new homebuilt design, making it a distinctive type on its own.
 * The specs are quite different: new weights, speed and power and we usually only put one set of specs in an article - therefore the separate article allows separate specs.
 * For those reasons I think it ought to remain a separate article, although the two articles should be linked (which they are) - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well a week has passed with no consensus to merge or further discussion, so I think we can safely remove the merge proposal templates now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)