Talk:Westland Lynx/Archive 1

French Production
The article states that Several aircraft were built under licence by French company Aerospatiale for French usage. I think all the french Lynxes were built at Yeovil with all the others, I have a note of seeing at least one or two at Yeovil in the 1970s on build. Not sure about a licence where they not just built as part of the Gazelle/Puma/Lynx agreement ? MilborneOne 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The french did not build any Lynx they just had a share in the manufacturing programme - article amended.MilborneOne 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

US Contract Lynx to replace UH-1 Hueys?
Is it possible the Lynx will enter US Military service to replace the UH1 Huey's?. User:Jetwave Dave 02:23 AM, 23/05/07

Isn't that what the Blackhawks were suposed to do? Roger 08:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for this? The Army is ordering the UH-72 Lakota specifically to replace Hueys, and to supplement the state-side use of Black Hawks. It might be possible that the US Army will contract Lynxes in the near-term to fill the gap in some way, but without a verifiable source, this is just a guess. To my knowledge, the Lynx was not even in the LUH competition won by the UH-72, as the entrants were off-the-shelf commercial models. - BillCJ 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a radar system called the Lynx that is used by the US Army. It's quite pssible this has caused some confusion. - BillCJ 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Military Operators
The 4 aircraft ordered by South Africa have not yet been delivered. Roger 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First 2 (193 & 194) were delivered on 13 July 2007 Roger 10:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The second two (191 & 192) were delivered on 27 July 2007 &mdash; Impi 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
Can someone provide the techical details? Design features with explanations if possible En51cm 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that on my list of things to do, and this article needs nome reoganization too. Right now, I have so many articles I'm working on expanding that it may be a while before I get to this one. If you know of someone who loves to write, and is fairly good at it, I could use help in rewriting copyrighted text into a usable form (with sources). I can find the sources in just a few hours, it just takes a lot of time for me to do the rewriting (about a week per article, and I have 14 in line!) - BillCJ 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved a couple sections around. I started a Design section with some basic stuff.  I've got it further down in the article than it should be for now. -Fnlayson 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lynx AH.1/5/7/9
AH as a mark number prefix stands for Army Helicopter, not Attack Helicopter. There have been several types designated AH, for example the Sioux AH.1 or the Alouette AH.2, neither of which could be described as "attack" helicopters! See, for instance, here or here. Letdorf 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Re: Citation for armament / TOW missiles / Use in warfare
Just read an interesting book by a James Newton DFC, who is a Lieutenant Commander in the 847 Naval Air Squadron. He flew in lynx helicopter during the latest Iraq conflict, they were only equipped with 4 TOW's.

For anyone interested in the combat role this helicopter has played I think this book is a must read. The book is called Armed Action (James Newton DFC), and gives a lot of first hand accounts showing the versatility (and limitations) of a Lynx in extreme conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.171.153 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citation needed for Armament
In response to the citation needed for the arming of Lynx with 8 x TOW ATGW, see the following link:

here

New to this so don't know how to insert the citation myself - can anyone assist?

Thanks! PongoPilot (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the citation. This was done by substituting with . Also i took the liberation to fix up your link above a little :) KR, Hebster (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture
What about a cultural section ? Dutch lynxes are featured on Who Am I? movie ? --Jor70 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Aircraft/page content and WikiProject Military history/Style guide about guideline for Popular culture content. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildcat?
An IP added a poorly-written, uncited blurb about the Future Lynx being renamed the "Wildcat". Does anyone have a reliable, preferably authoritative, source for that? Also, I've been podering a variant split of this article for some time. If "Wildcat" is official, perahps we should split off the Future Lynx/Wildcat info to AgustaWestland Wildcat Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wildcat name has been mentioned on the Military Aircrew forum on PPRuNe and is also mentioned here and here. There seems to be some uncertainty over whether the Army variant will also be called Wildcat. IMHO, I don't think it really deserves its own article, at least not yet. Letdorf (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the sources. THose are about what I found before I posted my question here. All are basically blog-type pages. Just to be clear, I'm proposing an article on the entire Future Lynx line, not just the Wildcat. While this article is not extremely long, it is getting there. With the Furture Lynx being a AW product, along with the many design updates at this point, I think a split is do-able, if not now, then in the near future. - BillCJ (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the text, the Future Lynx is basically an all-new design. I think this lends towards having a variant article. - BillCJ (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be a lot of new content, but Future Lynxes will be "remanufactured" from existing Lynx airframes . Letdorf (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC).


 * No ref yet but the new aircraft appear to designated the AW159 Lynx Wildcat. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is called AW159 according agustawestland press release 24/04/2009 --Jor70 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I suggest we call the "Future Lynx" article the AgustaWestland AW159, with the name "Lynx Wildcat" in the Lead and infobox. With the {new} model number, it definitely qualifies for a variant article. I'll try to work on it this weekend if there arre no strong objections from several users. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think adding some basics here and/or writing in a sandbox would be the way to start. With first flight late this year, more articles/sources will be available. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right about doing a sandbox first, Jeff. For some reason, I thought there was more info on the Future Lynx in the article than there actually was! I'm setting one up at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/AgustaWestland AW159. We'll probably need to watch out for some other users trying to create a new page this week. - BillCJ (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be put right into article space for two reasons: First it will reach a wider audience and the possibility to get as much (correct) information as possible is bigger and second it will most likely prevent users from creating a new page this week. I think that BillCJ's sandbox article is more than qualificed to reach article-space (there are plenty of articles with lesser quality there already!). Nice work Bill. JM2C though. --Hebster (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jeff (Fnlyson) has done some more work on it since you've posted, so I'll try to do some more work on it today, and see if I can get it ready to go live. Housekeeping note: AgustaWestland AW159 will need to be deleted so I can move the sandbox page there. This will keep the contributions of others in the history, which is not necessary in cases where I'm the only one who contributed to the sandbox. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't do much.  Those links should have info to help fill in details. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! And thanks to Hebster for the fair-use pic. Now I need to find one for the restored AgustaWestland AW149 article! Hopefully I'll get to that tomorrow, along with updating that article with the Turkish proposal. - BillCJ (talk)

Super Lynx
This article does not seem to explain what the Super Lynx is. Did the Super Lynx follow from the Lynx 3 attempt in the mid-1980s? Were the AH.9 and HMA.8 the first Super Lynx versions? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind on the questions. The 2nd generation Lynx was the naval Super Lynx and army Battlefield Lynx with the mk. 8 and 9 variants per Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft.  Will try to add some info from it... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Specification: Payload
Are we sure about the listed payload capacity? For a helicopter of this size to carry only 737 kg (1625 lbs) sounds relatively low. Other helicopters with half of the Lynx's power output can lift twice as much. I don't think you could even get the advertised "9 troops" with gear in for under 1625 lbs. I've seen other specs for payload at 3000+ lbs, but nothing definitive. 128.158.1.166 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FLIR
What is FLIR? the article refers to FLIR but it doesn't say what it is...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.19.150 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FLIR = Forward looking infrared. Will fix in article... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifications: Speed & record
I would add a "Also, see Flight_airspeed_record." to the speed section of the specs, but they're confusing, they're not plain text and I dunno how to edit them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.181.70 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Sikorsky X2 just beat the Lynx speed record. Should the page be updated? Sikorsky X2 Breaks Helicopter Speed Record --Jamesvandyke (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not now. The X2's speed is not an official record. That requires witness(es) from the FAI.  The wording in this article mentions official record to be clear on this. -fnlayson (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not ever. The X2 is not a pure helicopter as it has a pusher propeller. Any record it sets (officially sanctioned or not) isn't in the same category. Roger (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I expected, but FAI lists does not seem to differentiate between helicopter and compound helicopters (all rotorcraft). See discussion at Talk:Sikorsky X2 for more details. -fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand the FAI classes the X2 can hold the "All rotorcraft" record but not the "Helicopter" record, which is held by G-LYNX. The FAI doesn't (yet) have a category for compound helicopters. Roger (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the arrangement their records page seemed to indicate. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fastest Helicopter Clarification
I respectfully request that the helicopter speed record by Westland be modified to allow the general public to understand the nature of helicopter speed records to get a well rounded perspective and eliminate the Westland propoganda.

Old: In 1986 a modified Lynx broke the official airspeed record for helicopters, which still stands

New: In 1986 a single highly modified Lynx broke the official airspeed record for plain helicopters, which still stands, but has since been exceeded by the Sikorsky X2 compound helicopter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The version you list above is the summary version for the Lead. The details are in the Development section, if you read down. -fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An "average" reader (not well versed in aviation technicalities) will not be able to appreciate the very significant difference between a conventional and a compound helicopter unless we specifically include a fairly detailed explanation of the difference and its significance in terms of speed. The X2's alleged record is in any case not recognised by the FAI. Roger (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dodger, Please elaborate on what this very significant difference is? Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale — an international organization based in Switzerland that certifies world aviation records (and which X2 critic Elfan Ap Rees serves as honorary president of the rotorcraft committee) — defines helicopter in a way that would appear to include the X2.

Section 9 of the group's Sporting Code for rotorcraft, available on the NAA website, says a helicopter is a "rotorcraft which, in flight, derives substantially the whole of its lift from a power-driven rotor system whose axis (axes) is (are) fixed and substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft."

By the FAI's own definition, Sikorsky's X2 seems to fit. It generates lift from its main rotors — the ones on top — which spin on an axis perpendicular to the lengthwise axis of the aircraft's body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * THe X2 has not set any official records to this point, which are still held by the Lynx. Sikorsky is considering going for the official record once the main testing is complete. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The X2 will fall under the more general rotorcraft category with the FAI (Class E) for official record setting. The Lynx falls under the narrower helicopter subcatgeory (Sub-class E-1) under rotorcraft. -fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Lynx record did not break any boundaries like when the X-1 broke the speed of sound. It is therefore only worthy of being a sidenote unless your intent is to show that there is a limit for single rotor helicopters. Just trying to prevent propoganda in an encylcopedia - as written, this is just propoganda and adds no value other than self promotion. Please enhance entries to eliminate obfuscation - otherwise you join the ranks of the venerable Vandals who sacked Rome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 September 2010


 * I dont really understand your point are you trying to say we should not mention the Lynx has a world record because it wasnt important - hard to believe that a holding a world record and keeping it for over twenty odd years is not important. How that it is propaganda you really need to explain it is a verified fact and an important milestone in helicopter development. Perhaps we need to expand the record section so that readers understand the importance of the record and the advanced technology that was used. Also please dont comment on other editors or use the term vandals it is not considered to be civil and also understand that United Technologies Research Centre is operated by the owners of Sikorsky so you may need to consider our WP:COI guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to mentioning the Lynx record. I do object to not clearly identifying who established this record and why (noting that there is a speed limit for this type of helicopter that it did not surpass - this limit is why no other companies have attempted to break this record and why it has stood for so long) I also feel that it does not belong in the lead paragragh, while it was a consederable effort, it in and of itself was not of any great significance as it was a 1 time flight and no new boundaries were established by this flight as was done when the X1 broke the speed barrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky X2
Why hasn't one of the editors removed the term "helicopter" from the Wikedpedia posting for the Sikorsky X2? Something is seriously askew here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.21.86 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is to discuss the Westland Lynx article if you have an issue with the Sikorsky X2 then please use the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The X2 has apparently broken the Lynx speed record - albeit unofficially. Therefore this post eiher needs to reflect the record as being unofficially being broken, or the Sikorsky page updated to refer to it as a rotrcraft oot a helicopter - ya'll can't have your cake and eat it too - one of these two posts needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.21.86 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just in case here is the link > Talk:Sikorsky X2 MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Milborne, When will you be correcting the X2 post to remove the term helicopter? or is it a helicopter in which case this post needs to be updated to reflect the speed record has been unofficially broken? Just a good ol country boy here in the USA trying to make some sense of all the who doo goin on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.21.86 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Scuse me - I meant hoodoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.21.86 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. >> Sikorsky X2 (unless you have a conflict of interest). MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The X2 has both a main rotor (two contra-rotating main rotors to be precise) and a "propulsor" (propeller) for translational flight. This configuration is usually referred to as a "compound helicopter", which is often considered to be a different category of aircraft to a "pure" helicopter (like the Lynx) for the purposes of speed records etc. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC).


 * It's not clear to me whether the "official" records distinguish between between "pure" and "compound" helicopters. I've seen both views claimed using supposedly reliable sources. Second, from what I've been able to find, the Lynx that broke the record had its exhausts ducts modified so that it produced some extra thrust at high speed, which would also make it a compound helicopter. At this point, all I can see that's totally verifiable is that the Lynx record is official, and the X2 record is not. Note that the XH-59/S-69 was faster than the Lynx, and did it several years before, but it was also unofficial. There are probaly several other unnoficial records that can be listed. If the X2 does go for and break the "official" record, I'm sure we'll get more reliable clarifications on the matter from Sikorsky and the FAI, and then it would be worth listing in this article, with any clarifications. Until then, we should keep the unofficial records out of this article. I do think the official record should be mentione donthe other pages, esp. the X2, but that's a matter for that page, not here. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we put this in some sort of context? Using the logic presented, the SR-71 should not hold the aircraft speed record as original aircraft had propellers and the SR-71 has a jet engine, and original aircraft had one wing, not two, so the F8F should not hold an aircraft speed record; I rather think it is appropriate to list the F8F as holding the record for propeller aircraft and the SR-71 as holding the overall record for aircraft (Note that the F8F Bearcat wikipedia entry does to show it as holding the speed section in the lead - rather the body of text, maybe because this record is not ground breaking?).  I believe this entry for the Lynx should be updated to indicate that the Westland helicopter holds the FAI record for conventional helicopters and let the compound helicopters fight it out over the X2 or the Lockheed XH-51A which has been stated as holding the unofficial world record for helicopters http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/lok_compaud.php (wikipedia entry for this AC should also be looked into).  The X2 looks like a duck, flies like a duck, and acts like a duck; therefore it must be a helicopter.  The V-22 is not a helicopter as it cannot autorotate.  Finally, just as propeller aircraft can not exceed the speed of sound in sustained level flight, conventional rotorcraft are also limited to around 250MPH - its a whole new world for helicopters now, accept it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The text in this Lynx article clearly states it is a Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's official record for helicopters. The X2 does not have an official FAI record yet.  When the X2 sets a FAI rotorcraft, compound helicopter, or other subcategory record, that'll be added to that article.  Time to move along. -fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Rotor Head
This article states the Lynx rotor head to be of the 'semi-rigid' design. It doesn't take much looking (even on Wikipedia) to find out that semi-rigid is in fact the correct name for the 'teetering' or 'see-saw' rotor head, which the Lynx does not have. As a helicopter engineer, and, more specifically, a Lynx engineer, I know that Lynx actually has a 'rigid' rotor head (this article even makes reference to Rotorhead Images (14) which states that the Lynx head is rigid). To be even more specific, it is actually a 'flapping-rigid' rotor system. Skids (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's have a look at what some sources say
 * Jackson, Paul. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 (p. 496) - "single four-blade semi-rigid main rotor (foldable), each blade attached to main rotor hub by titanium root plates and flexible arm"
 * James, Derek N. Westland Aircraft since 1915 (p. 402 & 404) "Semi-rigid main-rotor".
 * It looks like "semi-rigid" is what reliable sources call the main roto.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 14 does not appear to be a reliable source, so probably sholdn't be used for any more than a location of photos.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have at least 3 books that state "semi-rigid" rotor: Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters (ISBN 9780517439357, p. 106), Encyclopedia of World Air Power (ISBN 0-517-49969-X, p. 290) and International Directory of Civil Aircraft (ISBN 1-875671-58-7, p. 166).  So "semi-rigid" seems fair and is a common description here.  From one of these or other source as I recall described it as a rigid rotor with flex beams to provide some hinging effect, i.e. nearly rigid. -fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's have a look at industry standard helicopter rotor design principles;
 * A semi-rigid (AKA semi-flexible) rotor system has blades that are rigidly connected to each other via the hub. The hub itself forms part of a teetering hinge (a single hinge which replaces all the flapping hinges that would be used on a fully articulated system) and has no need for a lag hinge - this is why it is called semi-rigid.  There are plenty of helicopters out there that have semi-rigid rotors (most of Bell's output springs to mind).  The Lynx rotor head has only a pitch change (feathering) hinge for each blade and no other hinges, feathering hinges have no impact on whether a rotor head is semi-rigid or rigid (although some systems do have elastomeric instead of metal bearing feathering hinges).  Flapping is taken up by flex in the titanium hub and lead/lag is taken up by flex in the titanium blade extension arms.  The hub is also pre-coned so there is no need for coning hinges which some semi-rigid rotors have.  Semi-rigid rotor systems bring limitations on aircraft performance, something which the barrel rolling Lynx doesn't suffer from.  As I indicated above, the Lynx head can be more specifically described as a flapping-rigid head, or more accurately, a flexible-rigid head.  I'll also say again, as a Lynx engineer I know that the Lynx rotor head is rigid, not semi-rigid.
 * In addition to doing away with lag and flapping hinges the Lynx also does away with swash plates as the rotor mast is hollow and contains a spider-arm assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skids (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers built
The variants/operators section is a mess. And the info box doesn't have numbers built mentioned.

Here's what I waa able to count:

Army Lynx:

146 to British Army, 3 to Qatar

Navy Lynx:

90 Royal Navy, 40 French Navy.

Export Navy Lynx:

143+?

So, 422+, not counting prototypes? 96.238.135.204 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem adding the total number built if you can provide a reliable reference. You didnt say what you thought was wrong with the variants or operators section? MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Variants section will necessarily be complicated owing to the number of conversions between models, particularly for the British variants, with some of the conversions having new airframes.
 * Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 has 417 production helicopters (including the six Malaysian, two Thai and 16 Omani Srs 300 Lynxs, plus 13 prototypes, 3 demonstrators the the single Lynx 3, giving a total of 434.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Helicopter/rotorcraft speed record again
Throughout various discussions on the internet, this page is being repeatedly cited as a claim that the Westland Lynx is the world's fastest helicopter. While this is false, as the speed of a standard Lynx is only 201 mph, they further believe that no other aircraft has challenged it's record, officially or unofficially. The past discussions show that the X2 has repeatedly been intentionally omitted to solidify this belief. I suspect nationalism and a lack of objectivity to be present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A suitable correction to this would be for those who refuse any mention of the X2's "unofficial" record create a separate section, or page, for the G-LYNX to clarify that it, not the standard Westland Lynx, is the official world record holder as there seems to be mass confusion on the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the problem is the two mentions of the record both clearly state in the lead specially modified Lynx and in the main body with regard to G-LYNX was specially modified with Gem 60 engines and BERP rotor blades so it is unclear why the reader would be confused. Just checked the FAI website and it shows no pending claims for the records that the G-LYNX holds, if it was clear that the X-2 compound helicopter was making a claim on the E-Absolute record for rotorcraft then I would agree it may be worth a mention but nothing on the FAI website shows any such claims pending. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just moved archived the old discussion sections here 3 years or older to Archive 1 page. There are like like the 3rd section on the helicopter speed record here now.  Given that I don't think there's really anything left to say. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, Sikorsky retired the X2 before they had a chance to run the X2 on a closed course before ann FAI observer, which is required to set a record. Sikorsky, had considered making a run at the record, but apparently the X2 used up its flight time before any attempt could be made. Perhaps the S-97 will make an attempt at the record in time. Given that Sikorsky chose not to make an attempt at the record with the X2, I still believe it doesn't need to be mentioned in the text. However, I think we could add a clarification in a footnote that the X2 was unofficially faster.


 * As to a separate artivle on the G-LYNX, I don't know if there is that much material out there to make an artivle that is longer thn a stub. But if there is, I would support it, as it is an interesting aircraft. - 23:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. A footnote mentioning the X2 should be fine in this article and prevent more discussions of the same old stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just be sure that the footnote also explains that the X2 is a compound helicopter which has a separate class in the FAI record book and that G-LYNX still holds the conventional helicopter record. Roger (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * G-LYNX had its exhausts ducts modified so that it produced some extra thrust at high speed, which means it's really not a pure "conventional helicopter" either. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Optimising the incidental thrust that every turbine powered helicopter benefits anyway from it's exhaust is worlds apart from adding an entire subsystem whose specific and only purpose is to provide forward thrust. By analogy the fact that racing cars have wings does not make them airplanes. The FAI classification is the final (and only) relevant authority. Roger (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * None of which contradicts what I stated. Also, do you have a verifiable source for the FAI's having separate classes for the two types? One of the earlier discussions stated there was no such division. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

G-LYNX (well actually John Egginton) holds three records: Just out of interest do we have a reliable source that the X-2 was actually measured against the speed over a straight 15/25km course if not it is not really like for like under the same conditions. A lot of aircraft have broken world record figures but not under controlled conditions so do not hold any records. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * E-absolute (all rotorcraft) speed over a straight 15/25km course
 * E-1 (Helicopter) Group 2 (Turbine) speed over a straight 15/25km course
 * E-1e (Helicopter with a take off weight 2000 to 4500 kg) Group 2 (Turbine) speed over a straight 15/25km course.


 * Technically, a 'helicopter' uses the tilting of the rotor disc to provide thrust in forward flight, whereas a 'compound helicopter' uses an auxiliary means in addition to, or instead of, tilting the rotor disc. in a conventional helicopter (which the Lynx is) the disc tilting is effected through the cyclic pitch control, which causes the blades at the rear of the aircraft to produce more lift than the front blades, which tilts the overall rotor disc. This translates into thrust rearwards. So a 'helicopter' like the Lynx use a tilted rotor disc for thrust, whereas a compound helicopter like the X-2 uses a supplementary means for forward propulsion. Hence by strict definitions the X-2 is not a 'helicopter', which is why it did not gain an FAI record for helicopters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This likely holds technical details of the record aircraft. TGCP (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lynx-mk7/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Photographs
This article currently lacks any photographs of AH.9 and AH.9A variants. Will someone provide any? Dreddmoto (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)