Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force/Archive 1

Helicopter
Born2flie: I just got done redoing the overview. I eliminated the comparative discussion of helicopters versus other types of aircraft and used the space to give a better overview of what helicopters are used for. I also began editing the /* History */ section, particularly expanding the paragraph on Pescara; correcting an error and then introducing significantly more data that I hope will be interesting. --06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've split out the Landing on a ship section to become the Helicopter deck article under the category Naval aviation. I have a recommended layout under Talk:Helicopter/Example. It kind of goes back to discussing the helicopter, the different types of helicopters and ultimately, I'd like to expand it to discuss the uses of the helicopter. I've also created an article called, Aerial crane (helicopter) that could be partly used to expand the article and linked to some that I feel would be worthwhile. --Born2flie 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've worked in some of these changes that I discussed, and also requested a peer review and tried to discuss the peer review on the article's Talk page. I really would like to get that History section fixed, and I would like to seriously edit the Controlling flight section that duplicates information and has that hazards subsection. I will work on that probably in the next couple of days, and would appreciate input on how to address the hazards that doesn't really fit in with where the rest of the article is going. There either needs to be a transition, or that section needs to be a different article. --Born2flie 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

R/C "aircraft"
Born2flie: Should R/C aircraft references be included in general rotorcraft topics? For an example, see Coaxial rotors. --15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Project template
Taking a cue from the Military history project, I've added an option to the template. If you add |Rotorcraft-task-force=yes to the template, well, you can see my test result at Talk:H-3 Sea King. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The templates show a redlink for now, but I think this page can easily be moved to the projectspace. PS. Very nice to-do list, I wonder where I've seen that before. ;} - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I, uh, stole borrowed those focus things from you (credit given on my user page). I've looked for a silhouette of a helicopter to use that would look good and kind of similar to the one used for WP:AIR. It would be kewl if the "|Rotorcraft=yes" simply changed the emblem in the template and allowed a stat output like WP:MILHIST does for their task forces. I don't know if you want to be that intricate with it, I am just throwing that out there. --Born2flie 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

AH-1 Cobra
Since the AH-1 Cobra is up next for major work, I thought I'd go ahead and ask this now: What about splitting the article in 2? The first article the basic Army models, including background and development of the 209. The second article could focus on the Marine versions, since these are the twin-engined models (arguments on PT6T being an actual twin aside).

As noted in the project tag's comments, the article does lack focus. The early history is shaping up, but the intervening models between the G and the W are only briefly mentioned in the Variants section. There is a great deal of history on the Army's development of the TOW models in the seventies, and the USMC's development of the AH-1T and W. I realize there's still a lot of room for expansion on the page, but I think in the end the article will still lack focus.

I know I could have put this on the Cobra talk page, and we can move the discussion there eventually. But since the CObra is up next revamping, I thought I'd give the task force a shot, and see what we think here first. - BillCJ 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be fair to cut the USMC versions out. Very few of the single-engine variants are flying, and there is a precedent with the Seahawk and Jayhawk articles being separate from the Black Hawk. I'd be for the split, but the problem would be what to call the USMC version: AH-1 SeaCobra or AH-1 SuperCobra? I would personally vote for SuperCobra being that it is tied to the current models and the SeaCobra could be referenced in the History. AH-1 only came up because it was the next one on the list, but it really needs the help. Oh, and Schweizer (Hughes) 300 advanced to B-Class, so I think we did a fair job on that one. --Born2flie 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about what to calls the twin Cobra page too. I guess AH-1 SuperCobra is the best choice available. - BillCJ 05:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Cobra is at-bat as a focus article, what do you want to do about splitting it up. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy doing splits, per the UH-1N and Bell 204/205 off of the UH-1 and 212. I think it would be easier to exapnd them after splitting, then we'd have a better idea what content needs to be expanded and duplicated. It would also let us list more specs for the various variants. Any thoughts or preferences on this? - BillCJ 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, considering the amount of traffic on the Cobra site, it would probably be best to add a split tag there if we decide we want to split it up. I don't forsee any opposition, but a lot of editors have been participating, and I only think it fair to give them a chance (to screw up our plans! :) ) - BillCJ 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd float the split out there and see what response you get (or don't). --Born2flie 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

EC 145, BK 117, UH-72
There is very little difference to these designs beyond who designed it, who is currently building it, and who is using the helicopter. Two separate merges have actually carried support for a while. If nothing else, bolster up the EC 145 article with the BK 117 information, that will essentially make the BK 117 article obsolete and eradicate opposition to the merge.

The UH-72 article...well, we could revert it back to the LUH article and then redirect the UH-72 to the EC 145 article with some notable information about the UH-72 for those looking for information? I think I will play with both of these in my sandbox and maybe move them here afterwards as examples to be considered for those articles. --Born2flie 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this one. As far as the UH-72, I think it's here to stay, esp. condidering speculation about it serving as the ARH. I know nothing my come of it, but it sounds like the Army's happy with it so far, and may may well end up in other roles/uses in the future. THe Army is still looking for a heavy-lift aircraft down the road, and there is the JCA contract also, I here that might get canceled, and then theres the af's CSAR-X contract, maybe the'y go small this time ;) (A little 4 AM humor, sorry). Seriously, I do see the article expanding in the future, and it's not that small right now. THe biggest need is pics.


 * As to the BK 117/EC 145 issue, it's 2-2 right now. At least the BK 117 group has a better case than the Ka 52 advocates! Given it's at a stalemate, it might be best to remove the tags, and let it rest for a few months. - BillCJ 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a plan for EC 145/MBB BK 117. hint: It resembles the Schweizer 300 solution, but without the naming concession. ;) --Born2flie 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Did some research. I'm not for the merge anymore. The problem is the article is very underreferenced. The second external link started changing my mind and then I hit avia.russion.ee and helis.com. Well, we can't all be right all the time. --Born2flie 05:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What points changed your mind? - BillCJ 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BK 117-C2/EC 145 is a stretched BK 117 modified with EC 135 elements added in, which is why I think Eurocopter went ahead and renamed it EC 145 instead of trying to keep the BK 117 designation. I've seen enough pics now that I can definitely tell the nose of the BK 117 compared to the EC 145. I guess it will have to be up to whatever the project determines about variants and separate articles, because I could see it both ways right now. I'm thinking JetRanger vs. LongRanger vs. 407. One is a whole new model, even though it was built based on previous models, while the other is simply a stretched variant. I guess the question is what EC 135 elements were incorporated into the EC 145 to make it different from the other BK 117 variants. Still working on that information. --Born2flie 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The EC 145 is extremely linked to the BK-117 as it is a BK-117C-2 as stated on its airworthiness certificate. Technically it is a highly modified cabin fitted with original tail boom, supporting two Turbomeca engines and having the main rotor of the BO-105CBS and tail rotor of the BK-117C-2. The UH-72A is an extrapolation of the EC 145 into UH-145 (nothing but marketing designation). Of course changes have been made into comm system, some avionics too and it became the "off-the-shelf" the Army was looking for...!! As rotorcraft historian I consider the the EC 145 as a evolution (new model based on) of the BK-117C-1, and UH-72A as sub-version of the EC 145. --captJB189.129.121.96 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft
What if we created an article as part of the project called, Helicopters in popular culture? Then, we recommend the removal of the Popular culture section of the WP:AIR guidelines and place the link to the ONE article in the "Related content" section of the helicopter articles that are found within popular culture. Thoughts? --Born2flie 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. But we'd have to decide how to handle that page, if you want to patrol it, or just leave it alone?
 * I did something similar on a much smaller scale with ther Harrier variants, originally putting everything on the Harrier Jump Jet page. Another editor decide it might be better to have a Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page, so he created it. Even with no categories on the new page, you'd be surprised at how fast the crufters found the page! I quickly found out it wasn't worth keeping a tight leash on the page, so know I just keep an eye on it for stuff that's really non-encyclopedic. I'd recommend you go through the edit history there to get an idea of what will happen if we create such a page for helicopters.
 * If we create the page and leave it alone, they will find it, and in no time it will be full of all kinds of stuff, much of it badly written, and almost none of it sourced. Granted, it will be out of the regular pages, which is the point to it all. But being for all types of Helicopters, it might become a bear to keep even half-way decent.
 * Or, we could just leave it alone totally, but come back every 3 or 4 months, and revert it to the original version. Now THAT might be fun! :) - BillCJ 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for THAT one!! Yeah, I wasn't even thinking of "owning" it as a part of the project. "Create it and they will come." Hell, we'll even point them the way when we remove those sections out of articles. Let them have their way with it and then, if we go back at all, we can find out how much it has grown. --Born2flie 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I think I'll take the Harrier pop-culture page off my watch list now, and just leave it alone. If it gets real bad, maybe someone will AfD it! - BillCJ 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No more redlink...it is done and several pages have the section removed. I've left it on the AH-1 and UH-1 pages. The AH-64 already has its own page. Others, I will address as I get to them. Basically, I have covered the Bell 206, OH-58, OH-6, and AH-1 articles. --Born2flie 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the Category:Helicopters and found two articles (Evac and Jolt (Transformers)) listed in the category. I went to the articles and recategorized them as Category:In popular culture and then found them reverted back into the Helicopter category later today. They aren't helicopters, merely representation of helicopters, is there something in the MoS or is it just the WP:AIR guidelines that says inaccurate representations don't count? --Born2flie 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New issue


 * I just went and pulled the cats again, and left a note on the user's page who reverted you. On another related note, before I came across this issue, I'd already added Category:Helicopters to UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture. Appropriate or no? Akradecki 02:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors, my opinion is that, no, it isn't a helicopter article, although it is about that model of helicopter in popular culture. The key, to me, is that it is in reference to popular culture, not that it mentions a helicopter. Just my opinion, though. --Born2flie 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects
I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project (WPMILHIST). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Powered lift

 * Can you take a look at the Powered lift article. I'm about to taks an axe to it, especially the summaries on the Harrier, V-22, and BA-609 (they are summaries now!). We don't list descriptions of every type on the Helicopter page, so I don't think this is needed here. However, I don't know much about the FAA category (Born2flie confirmed to me that this category does exist), so I'm really not sure what should be here. Thanks! (Even if you found the page on your own this time too. :) ) - BillCJ 17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance, you're right, it needs help. I'm wondering about the "two have been produced" statment...Didn't the Sovs put a Harrier equivalent into production? Yes, the FAA has a category of "powered lift", but my understanding is that it applies to pilot ratings, not actual aircraft certification. Harriers were production aircraft, but only one or two (NASA aircraft) were ever civvie registered, and those were under the "Experimental" category. As far as I know, the BA609 is being certified under FAR29, as a Transport Category Rotorcraft. Thus, since the only definition is the FAA one, and since it is only applicable to U.S. certified pilots, saying that this term applies to aircraft other than pilot license requirements to fly it is really not appropriate. Just my 2 cents.... Akradecki 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot the FAR ref that talks about powered flight ratings, it's FAR61.5. Akradecki 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thought...maybe this article is better merged into Pilot certification in the United States? Akradecki 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you got a good source to back it up, b/c the user who started it seems to really misunderstand the whole topic. I think he was extrapolating from the rating to coin a new aircraft type, but it really is covered better by other names/topics (rotorcraft, VTOL), and there's no real need to make a distinction here. - BillCJ 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell 204/205
I guess I've gone Huey-happy this week! Alan knows about it already, but I'm starting to put together an article on the 204 and 205 civil versions (and ex-military models in civil use) at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. It's coming together pretty quickly, but still needs text on civil development and usage, plus at least 1 pic on a civil 204. I hope to get some text written next week or the week after. Just a heads-up. Thanks. Oh, I'm waiting on the TF to get to the Cobra before trying to work out a split. Just say when (no hurry). - BillCJ 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. - Alan and I are covering the 210 under this article, as it's indended for civil use (I think Huey II is for mil use). What about the Global Eagle? As it's primarily civil, I'm putting a mention in the 204/205 page. - BillCJ 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it was a slow nighte on WIki, so I was able to get the text finished. THe article is now live, so tweak away! I've also moved the Global Eagle discussion to the Talk:Bell 204/205 page; see new remark there. - BillCJ 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in popular culture
Hey, all...you might want to check out Articles for deletion/UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture and voice your opinion. Akradecki 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've got a similar problem with the "AF1 in pop culture" page. I left a post on the WP:AIR talk page about it, and you might want to mention this there too. Of course, if we lose, we can move the info on both pages to the Helicopters in pop culture page, then we'd have a long article there, that's if they don't AfD it too. I definitely think WP:AIR needs to be involved in this. If they approve pop culture pages on a limited basis, at least that should prevent there deletion. - BillCJ 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Might actually have to reference that cruft page with sources to withstand the next onslaught.--Born2flie 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Task Force Award
Do you think we could adapt the Wikiwings into WikiRotors? Not to give to ourselves (more than once, anway!) but to others who help out with rotorcraft articles on a regular basis. It might help to promote the Task Force too. Just a thought. And no, I don't know enough to do the graphics! - BillCJ 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I use . I kind of like the Wikiwings the way they are, but that's just me. --Born2flie 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Operators
As far as military operators go, I would like to recommend to the task force in particular but also see if we can get the Project and WP:MILHIST's aviation task force on board with actually finding which units use/used the aircraft and maybe an approximate number of aircraft. Example

Ultimately, it may be a bit more time consuming, but it lends towards developing the article closer to the perfect article. --Born2flie 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'd also like to see some consistency in sourcing the operators lists properly, or at least permission to start enforcing the existing rules on attribution. COuld cout down on the revert wars over who used what when, like in the Cobra article. My 2 cents. - BillCJ 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aérospatiale Dauphin
You might want to check out Aérospatiale Dauphin. It was created by an old user whom I have seen active lately, but not seen since I began editing. He mau have more planned for the page. I hope so, but there's not much about the single-engine Daupin model, so I really don't see the point a of a split. In my opinion, it would have made better sense to split off the EC 155 model. Anyway, just wanted some second opinions. - BillCJ 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see much of a point, either. How many are singles are currently being used today? --Born2flie 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How many singles were built? I think it's about 40! The twins were far more successful. - BillCJ 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we recommend a merge? I dunno. We might need some source material. I mean, we've given separate articles to twin-engine and single engine variants of other aircraft, but 40 copies doesn't strike me as notable enough, considering that the follow-on development eclipsed the "original" configuration instead of two separate histories running concurrently. --Born2flie 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I that would be the best way to go. The early twins (SA365C) were fairly similar to the singles, but were improved substantially since then, while the single was discontinued in the early 80's, if not late 70's. THere is a separate artciel on the military Panther already. If anything esle needs to be split, I'd suggest putting everything before the EC 155 on the Aérospatiale Dauphin page (in essence, merging the single back in, but splitting the EC 155 off. I'm not certain the EC 155 actually uses the Dauphin name tho. Currently, that article isn't large enough to warrant a split, but I beleive there is more than enogh content available on the 365 twins to make the page unwieldy. I'm certian a page on the EC 155 would be longer that the single-engined page! And it would have pics! As far as histories running concurrently for singles and twins, the Squirrel versions (AS 350 and 355) are all on on page, so there is precedent even with succesful models for having both on the same page. - BillCJ 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I was thinking of the UH-1N Twin Huey article as well. I guess we need to decide within the Project when an article is split off for a variant and not a derivative and when it remains a part of the older variant's article (or newer variant in this case). Seems if we could establish that then we would have much stronger arguments regarding license built aircraft as well. Because as far as I'm concerned, if the HH-65 wasn't popular enough a topic to stand on its own, I'd merge that back in as well. In my mind, I continually go back and read the FA-class articles of the project as a standard to be reached for. I don't judge on when a variant should be split out based on whether or not it is "notable" but on whether or not the article that results has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving FA-class status. If it doesn't meet that test, I'd much rather have it a part of a larger article addressing all variants so that it contributes towards the single article becoming GA or even FA-class. --Born2flie 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could use a checklist of some sort tht aren't "quite" guidelines, but at least something based on FA-status criteria to use to evalute proposals. I haven't done much reading on FA status at all, other than reading a few reviews of articles. But I do evalute it in my head to see if I think there is enouvh content out there to make a decent article. Doing formal evaluations is not one of my strong suits, so I tend to focus on making sure an article at least meets the page content guidelines, and if it does, it's contnet is usually at least a strong stub or a good start class. I also take into consideration its history, usage, and familiarity with the public. As with the HH-65, there is usually so much material available on US aircraft, especially the foreign-designed ones, that it makes sense to cover them separately under their US designation. The HH-65 is probably on the margin it that sense.

On the UH-1N in particular, I definitely believe it needed to be out on its own from the main article, content-wise at least, as the UH-1 and 212 pages both had weak, often redundant coverage of the N-model. I didn't think it through all the way, or I would have dumped its info into the previously-existing UH-1Y page first, and then renamed it. Given all of Bell's problems, the H-i Upgrade among them, it remains to be seen if the UH-1Y will survive in the long term. Alan supports keeping the 2 separate, you seem to favor having them together, and I'm on the fence. It's another case were I see both sides of it, but there's not one strong deciding factor either way for me. If you feel very strongly that they ought to be together, I'll support you on it. You've stepped back and let me do things I felt strongly about, as has Alan, and I think that's all part of working together. If I went a little overboard on splitting the Huey articles up without discussing it first, and stepped on your toes in any way, I'm sorry. I support all of the splits in hindsight save for the UH-1N/UH-1Y issue, As I said, I just missed an easy option but moving so fast.

I don't want to do that on the Cobra, but we've already talked about doing it, and you seem to favor a split. Coverage on the Army models is extremely week, I know we'll be able to expand that part a lot when we start doing it in force. Twenty years ago, most printed material focused on the Army Cobras, as they were the backbone of the attack fleet. Since the Apache has come on the scene, the Super Cobra gets most of the attention, esp with 2 Iraq wars and Afghanistan. So I do think we can support 2 articles there very well. - BillCJ 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See, now, I wasn't going that far. I was just saying that if we split out the UH-1N from the UH-1 and the 212, for that matter, it seems that we can't argue against a single-engine helicopter having its own article from a twin-engine variant, even if that is all it is, a variant. Another example is that the OH-58D is included in the OH-58 article, even though the OH-58D almost is its own new kind of aircraft, with a 4-bladed main rotor, a totally different rotor hub, upgraded transmission, new engine, etc.. All I'm saying is that we lack consistency in how we approach why a variant will get its own article versus combining variants into an article on the type. It really has nothing to do with the UH-1N article other than here is a twin-engine version we've separated out from the single-engine version similar to how Rlandmann has separated out the single-engined Dauphin from the twin-engined versions, how do we justify recommending a merge with one aircraft and not another? It's a problem I think we as a Project, and not just this task force, need to solve together. --Born2flie 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Translated article
Looks like one of my babies got translated! See MD Helicopters. The translator obviously did some of his own research, has some added sources, and there are other differnces, but the basic layout is very close. It has a company logo, but I'll have to check out the copyrights more closely to see if we're really able to use it. Anyway, I'm a Wikigrandpa now! :) Btw, I'm NOT taking complete credit for the whole article. I know Born did a lot of work on the Hughes Helicopters article, and I copied alot of it for the background; others contributed directly, as I believe Born did to. - BillCJ 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats!! --Born2flie 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that interwiki link was added, but didn't think much about it then. But yea, that is pretty cool. :) -Fnlayson 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter again
I've placed a recommendation on the Talk:Helicopter page to replace the Generating lift sections from the page with sections from the draft article in my sandbox which is temporarily transcluded to Talk:Helicopter/Example. Please check it out and give it a vote. --Born2flie 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. It looks like you have added the info from the example page plus some other changes. -Fnlayson 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

B-Class articles
I've had to downgrade some of the B-Class articles in the Helicopter category because they don't quite meet the B-Class criteria for WP:Aviation, and by heredity, the task force. The articles currently affected are Helicopter, OH-58 Kiowa, and AH-1 Cobra. The biggest thing I see holding all of these back from being solid B-Class and ready for peer review for A-Class (or GA-class or FA-Class) is the criterion of, It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. Particularly, I find the evidence of major omissions being the main reason why these articles cannot meet the B-Class criteria and then the second is the article being referenced and cited appropriately (not necessarily these articles).

This is a pretty widespread condition within the Aircraft Project regarding B-Class rated articles. Including, just about every B-Class article for this task force. If you stumble across a B-Class or Start-Class article, evaluate it according to the B-Class criteria. If it doesn't meet the criteria, knock it down a notch to get it some attention, and if it meets the criteria, promote it and put it up for a peer review. My recommendations on how to handle article improvement within the task force...that's all. --Born2flie 16:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter Colibri
Ksyrie believes that the alternate nomenclature for the Eurocopter Colibri is the HC-120. I've provided verifiable sources that demonstrate that CATIC (via Harbin) has a subordinate role in the development of the aircraft and that the HC-120 will be a Chinese-assembled variant. The Australian Aerospace production line will provide EC 120 production for the rest of Asia and the Pacific rim, a fact which also seems to relegate production of the HC-120 for the internal Chineses aerospace market.

The nature of my dispute is that I feel Ksyrie has taken a less than neutral position on this article and is promoting a nationalistic or regionalistic viewpoint. The HC-120 is already listed as a Variant and CATIC and Harbin feature prominently in the lead-in proportional to their involvement. I believe that Ksyrie's edits serve only to mislead as to the nature of Harbin's involvement in the worldwide production of the EC 120 and attempts to simply give the HC-120 a treatment of greater importance in the article. (Reposted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force) --Born2flie 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seibel S-4
In case I don't get to it in a timely manner, the article is essentially a rearranged cut and paste from CollectAir's article on the Cessna CH-1. It needs a serious paraphrase rewrite to avoid copyvio. --Born2flie 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Fnlayson for his assistance in avoiding the copyvio. --Born2flie 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for your part.  You did most all of the rewriting. -Fnlayson 14:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

MH-53 Pave Low
I may have inadvertantly kicked over a hornet's nest with the MH-53 Pave Low by adding information on the Super Jolly Green Giant. See Talk:MH-53 Pave Low for details, and any input (whichever view you take) is welcome. - BillCJ 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-61R
I am preparing a new article at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. It will cover the S-61R variants of the H-3 Sea King: the CH-3B/E, HH-3E "Jolly Green Giant", and HH-3F Pelican. Due to the differeing cariant names, I prefer Sikorsky S-61R as the article name, but am open to other names. The text still needs to be rewritten, and the specs needs to be updated to one of the 61R models. I'd like to go live with it this month. Feel free to comment on the User talk:BillCJ/Test Article 3, and to make any constructive edits. As always, thanks. - BillCJ 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer (Hughes) 300
User:Rlandmann moved Schweizer (Hughes) 300 to Schweizer 300 with this comment: Make consistent with other aircraft naming. I have reverted his move, but suspect this isn't last last of this. I wonder if he even bothered to read the talk page, which discusses the name choice in detail. - BillCJ 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He was probably just springloaded to the guideline mode, just like when he switched Piasecki H-25/HUP to HUP Retriever...those damn guidelines, always getting in the way of common sense and consensus!! --Born2flie 23:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Project page to do list
I updated the Cleanup/Expand template in the How can you help section. I removed Helicopter from the expand part since that's been worked a lot the past few weeks and appears to be expanded. I added Bell 222 article a couple days ago. It could use more details, imo. -Fnlayson 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing-Vertol XCH-62
I am preparing a new article for the Boeing-Vertol XCH-62 at User:BillCJ/Test Article 1. Feel free to join in. I copied the page from the YUH-61, so all the text and specs are still for that model. ANy help would be appreciated, especially if you have some usable pics. Thanks again, and for the help with the Sikorsky S-61R page, which is now on the mainspace. - BillCJ 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes
Are we allowed to have sandboxes within the project or task force space? I know that several of us, especially Alan and Born2, have articles they are working on in their own users space. I was wondering if it might not be wrothwhile to move some of those pages to the task force userspace, if it's permitted by Wiki. If nothing else, maybe we could list our sandboxes of potential articles on the task force page, so that others can help contribute to getting new articles ready for the mainspace. Just wondering. - BillCJ 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Links could be added the Expand/Clean-up announcement template on the Rotorcraft task force main page. Put them under Development (would need to be added). -Fnlayson 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WZ-10, Rooivalk
hi


 * Updated the Rooivalk page in citation format
 * Updated the WZ-10 page in citation format

Koxinga CDF 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New sandboxes
I've got several revamped and forked articles on my sandbox pages. Please take a look, and see if you can help. Note that some of the articles have text copied from a printed source, placed under the heading Text. I've not re-written these sections yet, but feel free to help there too :) THe new and split pages are just proposals, but I think we can improve coverage by splitting them up. - BillCJ 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes:
 * Schweizer 330/333 : to be split off from the Schweizer 300 page. Needs pics (all I can find are of the Q-8 Firescout derivative).


 * Bell 407 : adding text on the development and description of the 407, which the article lacks.


 * Bell 427 : expanding coverage of Bell's light twin development, including the Bell 400 and 440, and mentioning the 206LT. Forking off the Bell 429.


 * Bell 429 : to be split off from the Bell 427/429 page.


 * Bell 222 : expanding coverage of the Bell 222 and 230, and forking off the Bell 430. Specs table needs the 430 specs removed (unless we want to keep them for comparison). That's done.


 * Bell 430 : to be split off from the Bell 222 page.

- BillCJ 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. So copy and paste the sections for the articles already in place and move the other ones.  For a future orject, what about adding some general product development details to Bell Helicopter after all this? -Fnlayson 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the 430, the spec table will look bare with only 430 data, what about keeping the 230 column for comparison? -Fnlayson 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just going to use a regular specs template for the 430. - BillCJ 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Coordination for improved productivity
Could everyone have a look at WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 206L split
While working on background info for the Bell 427, I've been puting togetehr some sources on the Bell 206LT TwinRanger and Gemini ST 206L conversions. The details probably belong on the Bell 206 page, and I intend to add them there in a few days. While the 206 page is really not all that long, what would the TF think of splitting off the the 206L LongRanger variants from the main JetRanger page. Would this be too confusing, as both models are usually thought of as the same versions? If we seems to support it, I'll start a discussion on the 206 talk page. - BillCJ 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, you know how I feel, if it doesn't add to the article's quality, no need to separate them until the preponderance of the article or references apply to one model over the other. --Born2flie 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Just passing through.

I'm putting this on hold for now, as there doesn't appear to be a need for it. - BillCJ 04:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Police aircraft
There are currently two articles on Police aircraft: Police helicopter, and Police plane (yes, plane!!) Both articles were created by the same IP user almost 2 years ago, one day apart. While both pages are still little more than stubs, Police helicopter is longer, and has been edited more extensively. I am proposing that Police plane be merged into Police helicopter, and that Police helicopter then be moved to the currently-vacant Police aircraft page. Btw, I've looked for the merge tag for merging 2 pges to a new page, but could'nt find it, if it ever existed! Please weigh in on the Talk:Police helicopter page, whatever your views. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I brought this up there. There are merge multiple templates but are for an existing article. -Fnlayson 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

S-64/CH-54 merge?
On the To Do list on WP: Aircraft talk, it is asking about merging the CH-54 Tarhe & S-64 Skycrane articles. Since they are rotorcraft, I thought I'd mention it here. -Fnlayson 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been there for over a month, but no one has proposed a merge as yet. Originally, there were two articles: CH-54 Tarhe, which covered the CH-54, and Sikorsky-built S-64; and the Erickson S-64, which covered the Erickson Air-Crane company and its conversions. I split off the compnay info to create the Erickson Air-Crane page, and then moved the civil info from the CH-54 to the S-64. At this point, I tried to follow the pattern withthe Huey articles of having one page for military usage, and one for civil usage. It may be a bit non-standard, but I think it works. If the Ch-54 and S-64 pages are merged, I honestly think it will cause more problems than it will solve. For one thing, what will the new article be named? Both names are legitimate, and a good case could be made for each. Trying to combine the names would be too awkward or too long. Second, the CH-54 article is basically historical, while the S-64 is still being produced. Again, I won't stand in the way of consensus, but I don't think the merger is necessary. - BillCJ 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the only Rotorcraft related item on that list I saw. Doesn't really matter to me.  But those are fine arguements for keeping it as is. -Fnlayson 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in pop-culture
I sincerely doubt the article is going to survive its AfD. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I've seen it enough times to be afraid. I stopped watching hte article a few months ago after it became next-to-impossible for me to keep it cruft-free by myself. I was actually considering purging it this month, but kept procastinating till the AfD was filed - without any warning, of course! If it does survive the AfD, we'll need more than one editor to commit to policing the page to keep it from becoming this bad again. If it doens't survive, I am probably going to propose to WP:AIR (and perhaps MILHIST) that we ban all pop-culture itms completely, including Top Gun and Airwolf. I've found it's alot easier to say No to ALL cruft than to explain why someone's favorite game or cartoon is not as notable as Top Gun! - BillCJ 23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Utility helicopter
Do we really need the Utility helicopter page? Right now, it is mainly a poorly-arragned collection of pics, with the potential for many more pics to be added, but no text content. Some one added pics of US utility helicopters, so naturally somone else has added Indian utility copters. The text is more akin to a dictionary entry, and I'm not really sure what else can be added without going into Original Research. Comments? - BillCJ 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea in general. There are articles for Attack Helicopter and Light Observation Helicopter as well.  But they aren't photo galleries with labels thrown in.  All in all the Ut. article needs to be made into a real article or deleted.  -Fnlayson 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough sourced material out there to justify a decent artical? - BillCJ 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I'm a bit late but Utility Helicopter is the common term used in the US Army for the UH-1 (retired), UH-60 and LUH.--The Founders Intent 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Need to make sure it is somewhat commonly used term first. It should be in the US with the HU-1/UH-1s.  I don't know about international usage though. -Fnlayson 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the Utility helicopter term have any use on the civil side? Or is there another term for multipurpose heli? It doesn't look like Utility is used, but you all know more about this stuff than me. -Fnlayson 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is. Generally it refers to helos that are multi-role/industrial aviation types, ie, 412, 205, etc. They carry things, not just people.  AK Radecki Speaketh  05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know they carry stuff & people.  I wasn't sure if there was a different term for multi-role on the civilian side.  The article needs to cover that then... -Fnlayson 05:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of deadliest helicopter crashes
Do we really need List of deadliest helicopter crashes? As short as it is, it seems that it could be merged into Helicopter, but I'm willing to give preference to others if there's a desire to keep it.  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No references are listed. Little value gained by it, imo. -Fnlayson 05:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been my recent experience that anything with "List" in the title is an AFD-magnet. I'd be OK with it on the Helicopter page, but we might look around and see if a better home exists. - BillCJ 05:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The two CH-53 crashes are already listed on the Sikorsky CH-53 page.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything with Pop culture in the name and images with not perfect fair use rationale as well... -Fnlayson 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, for now, I've moved the text to Helicopter under the hazards section.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, they even deleted one of Alan's pics of an S-64, which he took himself, and which was clearly marked properly! Fortunately, he'd just been made an admin, and was able to undelete it. - BillCJ 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

shortcut
Created a redirect shortcut for RTF: WP:Air/RTF. --Born2flie 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added to main taskforce page. -Fnlayson 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Focus
Does the main focus and next up on the main project page need to be updated? -Fnlayson 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Project liaison
I signed up as this project's liaison on WP Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal. Mainly I'll update the WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft, which I've been trying to do. If someone else here would rather do, speak up and it's yours. :) -Fnlayson 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How you can help section
I've been trying to update the how you can help stuff on the main Rotorcraft page. If you have something to add or change, go ahead. It is better to use the template box at the bottom since that is linked on the main Aviation project page. -Fnlayson 04:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Twin engine specs
Thanks to Akradecki's and an IP's edits on Bell 412 today. I noticed that Bell lists the total power output for the P&WC twin pack engine set. To work with the template, I listed half the total power for each engine. I just thought I'd mention it in case someone else runs across this too.. -Fnlayson 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Helitack
New article, could use some copyediting....  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll read through it later. -Fnlayson 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet, looks good! --Trashbag 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs to have the "checklist" completed for the B-Class criteria, and then probably put up for Peer review or else straight up nominated for A-Class, GA-Class, or FA-Class consideration. --Born2flie 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ✅


 * I grammar- and spell-checked it, completed the B-Class checklist, and submitted the article for peer review here with WikiProject Fire Service. --19:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft
The Mil Mi-24 "Hind" is both an attack helicopter and troop carrier. Should it be considered a comparable craft based on one of the other roles? Like it is comparable to the AH-1 and AH-64 based on the attack role. The opposite should not be true, since the AH-1 & -64 aren't troop carriers. Does this seem correct? I ask this because a user added the Mi-24 to a few attack helis today. That seems OK just looking at the attack capability. Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest calling these aircraft "armed" helicopters rather than attack helicopters? I say this because the Hind was derived from a Soviet utility helicopter. It was greatly modified to add the tandem cockpit configuration. The UH-1 was armed, the OH-58 was armed, and the OH-6 was armed. Helicopters such as AH-1, AH-64, Tiger, etc... were basically designed as attack helicopters from initial conception. Some may have used components from other aircraft, but were not really a modification of an existing airframe.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Maintenance
There is now a new page, WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cargo helicopter books
Does anybody know any decent books on cargo and maybe utility helicopters? I have the Frawley Int. Directory of Mil Aircraft, that has only a page or so on each type. I'm mainly interested in the H-53 Stallion and CH-47 Chinook families. I'm not finding anything decent on heavy lift or cargo helicopters or aircraft in general on amazon and other book sites. Thanks. -Fnlayson 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Greg Goebel's Vectorsite has articles on both, and I know you've used them as sources. What about his bibliography? Anything useful there? - BillCJ 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had only noticed articles and journals in the biblios. But you're right.  Whirlybirds: A History of the US Helicopter Pioneers and The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft are a couple he uses.  I'll see if they are in print or available used.  Thanks a lot Bill. -Fnlayson 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft (2000 printing), and it has good overviews, but it's comprehensiveness is about at the same level as Frawley, give or take a few lines depending on the article. But as it's from a different publisher/editor team, the info is complimetnary, and helps fill in the gaps. It's a good beek to have since it covers all military aricraft then in service.


 * I remember seeing a book on Boeing about 15-20 years ago that had some good coverage on the CH-46 and CH-47, but I never did buy it. YOu might try looking for books on the history of Boeing (or perhaps Piasecki/Vertol/Boeing Helicopters), and on Sikorsky Aircraft (esp the helicopter era). Also, I have a fairly interesting little book on the Chinook by Squadron/Signal Publications. THeir books have some detailed history, and are geared more towards modelers. (I bought this one at a model shop.) The one I have is fairly dated (ca. 1989), but the background history and combat service in Vietnam are good. I intended to use some of it on the Chinook page, but never did. - BillCJ 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill. I believe I'll start with the Whirlybirds book then see what else I can find based on your suggestions.  Aircraft books sure seem to go out of print quickly (just after a few years). -Fnlayson 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Whirlybirds book is a good one. I've almost finished the part on Sikorsky.  It is mainly history focused but covers the progression of helicopter models.  It has more details on the Sikorsky first helicopter prototype (VS-300) due to its significance. -Fnlayson 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I recently got the U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947 book. It is a directory type book, but has rare aircraft models in it.  Have another on called Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight that covers unusual V/STOL aircraft in pseudo-directory type format. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Autogyro
Have done a reworking of this article. If you could, read through and pick out the weak spots and comment on the Talk page. Thanks. --Born2flie 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AH-64 Apache
I submitted this article to WP:Aviation for peer review. The B-Class criteria was all marked as completed. --Born2flie 08:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bell 533
I'm reworking the Bell 533 article in my sandbox. Could you take a look and tag items you feel need to have notes attached. I'd also like you all to compare the sandbox with the source article (from Vertiflite), I will shortly post the link. and make sure I haven't phrased things too closely to the original author. I have another source to bounce the dates off of, but I won't be able to post it as a source until I verify that it is approved for public release, not to mention that it also may not be accessible for WP:VERIFY.

Please make any comments related to the article on the Sandbox article's talk page. Feel free to do that for any of my sandbox articles. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bell 533 was updated using Born's sandbox article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Monthly linkspam
Every month, I see an IP editor add a link to some aerodyndesign website. Interesting concepts, except the whole purpose of the site is to promote the individual's designs. I've reverted the addition every month ever since I looked the site over. I have no proof, but the time delay between edits seems to suggest that the IP editor comes in and makes the change once they review the monthly stats for the website and notice that they aren't getting any traffic from Wikipedia. I would just ask you to keep an eye out for the traffic in case I miss it. Usually, the link is added to Helicopter and Rotorcraft, but today the IP editor branched out doing a complete cut and paste of the External links section from Helicopter to the VTOL article. IMO this is WP:COI for website promotion purposes, as the editor has never made any other argument (other than stating it is "non-profit" in an edit summary) and tries to "slip" the link in every time.

Please correct me if I am in error. --Born2flie (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unfortunately, this IP editor doesn't understand that wikipedia code is such that links from here won't show up in their traffic reports.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the IP is now a registered user, AeroEngineer2008. Same link added to the Rotorcraft article (diff). --Born2flie (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Annoying Sinebot

 * Also posted on WT:AIR

Per User:SineBot, it's possible to opt talk pages out of Sinebot's territory, provided there is consensus on the talk page to do so. Would anyone be interested in supporting the exclusion of Sinebot on this page, and possible all WP:RTF article talk pages? I for one find its activity annyoing since the bot does not distinguish vandalism, and this disables the "Undo" feature in the Wiki software, and have had edit conflitcs with SInebot on a number of occasions. I've talked with the bot's creator, and while he's considering adding anti-vandal functions, he's not inclined to expand the timeframe between the user's edit and Sinebot's signature (about two minutes right now. Perhaps if more users and task forces/projects opt out to the point where his bot isn't being used much, he'll be more condusive to making adjustments. - BillCJ (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting application of helicopters in popular culture
For an interesting view of how helicopters, as a cultural icon in themselves have impacted family life, see the new Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-27/WikiWorld

The Core Contest
From The Core Contest. Guess which one is listed? --Born2flie (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does that mean we get to de-Apple the Core? :) - BillCJ (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good time to change from the bulletted lists to paragraph format in that article... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ for the most part. I have to edit the early part and I'd really like to clip the whole Limitations and Hazards sections. To me, they read more like, "Helicopters can't operate like fixed-wing aircraft because..." and, "Helicopters can crash for this many reasons..." --Born2flie (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter has been submitted. Now all we can do is wait for the feedback and hope that certain editors don't come in and render it FUBAR once more. Although, I admit I left the early history kind of messy. Please critique (mercilessly) the current changes. --Born2flie (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for UH-1 Iroquois now open
The peer review for UH-1 Iroquois is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates?
If you need help cleaning up or expanding a rotorcraft article, add it to the or post it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dare I ask would this list be for operators too? Erickson & Columbia amongst many other have a long and colorful history.  I only ask because I see only specific aircraft on that list now.  Regards,  --Trashbag (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about that, but rotorcraft manufacturers do fall under this taskforce too. So go ahead. Also, the "How can you help" area above the announcement template on the main WP:Air/RTF page can be used instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)