Talk:Helicopter/Archive 2

message: I just took a prelim look at this article.  It is very under cited.  It needs many more references and inline citations (just for beginners).  I will look a little mor eindepth later.  As of now, I feel that a B rating stands. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Born2flie: Chris, thanks. I will put it on my To Do list. Hope others will also! --23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rating 

message: The History Channel recently aired a show on Modern Marvels entiteled "Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII", which lists information regarding Japanese helicopters including an attack on a US submarine.  If there is evidence for this, we should update the page accordingly.  Here is the info:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=205656
In the 1930s, Japanese designers created a range of warplanes, culminating in the legendary Ki-43 Oscar and the A6M Zero. As the war turned against Japan, designers created the rocket-powered Shusui, the Kikka jet fighter, and the experimental R2Y Keiun. We also disclose frantic preparations to assemble a secret airforce of jet and rocket planes to counter an anticipated US invasion in1945, and chronicle post-war aviation and the birth of the Japanese rocket program in the 1950s and '60s.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.16.99 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, it was a licence-produced U.S. autogyro, not a helo.  Trekphiler 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese WWII Helicopter 

message: Born2flie: I think this article attempts to explain things that belong in other articles. An article about helicopters should have a good enough overview of the History and then focus on Uses of helicopters, rather than how they work. That approach has already been attempted and ended up in a bunch of articles being split out. --23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created an example article with my perception of where this page should be going. It is located here. --Born2flie 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Any opinions? --Born2flie 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, but I'd put the rotor section down under helicopter configuration. Akradecki 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Born2flie 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Direction 

message: Someone should put a link to the song by bloc party at the top of the page, I would if I could work out how to. Ian 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Helicopters in popular culture. --Born2flie 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The song isn't about helicopters, it's just called helicopter. You have to put Helicopter (song) to get to the song's entry, and if you just put helicopter you might assume there isn't an entry for the song. Ian 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The song is listed on the Helicopter (disambiguation) page. I've linked to the DAB page in lieu of the song page, as there are other items listed there. - BillCJ 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, very good. I'd forgotten about the dab page. Akradecki 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song by Bloc Party 

message: In my opinion, this whole section needs to not be a part of this article. It should be a part of a Naval aviation article or a Shipboard landing which might go into detail about all the other things related to landing aboard a ship deck. This is a general article about helicopters and while it might be okay to mention that one of the military uses of a helicopter is to land aboard ships for the purpose of transferring personnel and cargo, or to service and maintain the aircraft, a more detailed description detracts from the article's overview of the helicopter as a type of aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Born2flie (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Akradecki 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support split. - BillCJ 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landing on a ship 

message: I'd like to recommend replacing the section Generating lift and its subsections with the sections Helicopter configurations and Helicopter rotor system from the Talk:Helicopter/Example article. Discuss below.
===Survey===
:Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
;Support 
* Support - I think that there is too much redundancy and lack of organization to these sections and even the sections below. Replacing this one section with these two sections from the example article will serve to give a better focus to the article, better information and make the article a bit easier to read. But then, I'm partial because I wrote the Example article. --Born2flie 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace sections 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
;Support 
* Support - I think that there is too much redundancy and lack of organization to these sections and even the sections below. Replacing this one section with these two sections from the example article will serve to give a better focus to the article, better information and make the article a bit easier to read. But then, I'm partial because I wrote the Example article. --Born2flie 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Svetovid inserted the preceding statements into the article as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Props to the inventor, but he basically invented the precursor to the R/C helicopter. "First fully functional helicopter" implies a lot and I don't find such a claim established by the source, or any of the other strangely, similarly worded references online. Anyone with a hardcover reference have something on this? --Born2flie 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you reverted it to a state when there is information without any source at all? And I actually put a reference for Paul Cornu and updated the information. I reworded it.--Svetovid 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasn't a model. References in English are hard to find, I agree.--Svetovid 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First fully functional helicopter? 

message: I was just woundering if anybody has any information on silent helicopters or thier engines. I know that they are out there (ive even seen TV commercials for them), I just cant find any info on them.Gundam94 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about NOTAR? MD Helicopters has run some commercials in prime markets in the past. --Born2flie 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * That does sound like an advertising thing.  Really, how silent is "silent"?  It's all relative. -Fnlayson 22:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Helicopters? 

message: Saw the new edits. I had written this bit to insert. You may take what you like to amend what is currently in the article. I shall presently provide a reference for it.The Bréguet-Dorand Gyroplane Laboratoire was finished in 1933. After many ground tests and an accident, it first took flight on 26 June 1935. Within a short time, the aircraft was setting records with pilot Maurice Claisse at the controls. On 14 December 1935, he set a record for closed-circuit flight with a 500 m diameter. The next year, on 26 September 1936,  Claisse set a height record of 158 m. And, finally, on 24 November 1936, he set a flight duration record of one hour, two minutes and 5 seconds over a 44 km closed circuit at 44.7 km/h.
::::: --Born2flie 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gyroplane Laboratoire 

message: I had only intended to edit out the comma on my edit, so I marked it as a minor, but then copyedited the next paragraph. --Born2flie 07:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: Hi there. Before I consider sending the article off on it's way, I have a question. What makes this article so important that it does belong in this release? Tails0600 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It describes a feat of technology that's been used prominently in a very diverse array of fields, arguably just as much as airplanes. Everyones' lives have improved in some way due to helicopters, from allowing people to obtain more accurate traffic reports to finding criminals to transporting patients in an emergency. The article not only describes these uses but also explains the intricate and incredible technology behind them, along with their history. I personally don't think there's any question about this article's importance. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there's no question about importance, but, congratulations, this article will be in the 0.7 release! Tails0600 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 Release 

message: I previously removed the above entry regarding the Italian d'Ascanio because it didn't have a reference and the stated achievements conflicted with the referenced achievements of Oemichen. I have since found more references that suggest that d'Ascanio did set recognized FAI records but I have yet to see a reference from FAI that corroborates this information and at the very least corrects the discrepancies. --Born2flie 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  d'Ascanio 

message: I know that list is not correct.  For example, 38 soldiers were killed on 18 Aug 1971 in a helicopter crash near Pegnitz, Germany.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliest helicopter crashes 

message: How long can an ordinary news helicopter stay on station before needing to refuel?  How many hours can such ordinary helicopters be operated before needing significant maintenance? -69.87.200.63 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two to three hours of flight time is typical. Maintenance schedules are similar to those of fixed wing aircraft, e.g. 100 hour inspections, annual inspections, and complete overhauls at 2000 to 3000 hours depending on the model. Madhu 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ♠ Really, then why does a Black Hawk cost $6000/hr to fly and a Cessna about $20/hr?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-fueling? 

message: I propose to merge the content of Electric helicopter into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. In fact, it's rather unclear why "Electric helicopter" is a distinct concept from "Helicopter". All sourceable content (few sources are given) should be merger into here, maybe as one or two paragraphs.
Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether there's even that much material. Looks like a sentence or two, at most. There's only one type even referred to, a UAV that the only reference is the mfr's website, no indication that it is an actively-deployed UAV by any military source. I really see little useful content here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify...I'm not opposing a merge, if meaningful content can be merged, I simply don't see much meaningful content beyond a reference to the one UAV, and I question whether that's actually a notable product. Looks like Electric helicopter really just needs to be deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Electric helicopter section merged to Radio-controlled helicopter article. There is very little information not already covered, and the unsourced advantages/disadvantages bit is added to talk page for editors of that article to consider. --Born2flie 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposed (Electric helicopter) 

message: For now, as stated in my edit summaries, I think it best we leave out any of the Greek info until Born's source is confirmed. Once it is confirmed one way or the other, then we can include both versions and sources, putting the dictionary etymologies in a footnote. So  while I do agree that Apple's preferred sources are legitimate and wothry of inclusion, let's give Born's source time to check the originals. - BillCJ 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary sub-heading

message: I removed the reference to the Codice Atlantico (Codex Atlanticus) because Da Vinci did not write the codex. It was assembled from his notebooks by Pompeo Leoni. Since the information was not germaine to the history of the helicopter, I didn't correct it, but instead cut it from the article. --Born2flie 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codice Atlantico 

message: I know that helicopters are used to inspect lines and to transport linemen to repair and clean components on high voltage transmission lines, but does this section merit inclusion in an article about helicopters?:
===Linemen===
Electric power transmission companies are now using linemen in helicopters to perform repairs to high-voltage wires.  The lineman, wearing a "hotsuit" with steel wires sewn into the lining, sitting on the outside of the helicopter, uses a special rod to connect himself and the helicopter to the still-energized line, in a process called "bonding on," the lineman energizes himself and the helicopter so that he can now work on the wire safely, in the same way a bird can perch on a high-tension line and not be electrocuted.  The lineman is protected by his suit and the fact that he is bonded to and protected from the circuit in the same way as if he was inside a faraday cage.
----
*
*  Opposed - I don't think this section talks about helicopters other than a mention that the lineman sits on the outside of one and bonds himself and the helicopter so he can do his job --Born2flie 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linemen? 

message: Electric power transmission companies are now using linemen in helicopters to perform repairs to high-voltage wires.  The lineman, wearing a "hotsuit" with steel wires sewn into the lining, sitting on the outside of the helicopter, uses a special rod to connect himself and the helicopter to the still-energized line, in a process called "bonding on," the lineman energizes himself and the helicopter so that he can now work on the wire safely, in the same way a bird can perch on a high-tension line and not be electrocuted.  The lineman is protected by his suit and the fact that he is bonded to and protected from the circuit in the same way as if he was inside a faraday cage.
----
*
*  Opposed - I don't think this section talks about helicopters other than a mention that the lineman sits on the outside of one and bonds himself and the helicopter so he can do his job --Born2flie 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linemen

message: I have requested a Peer Review for this article. The first reviewer had these comments:
*To start off, the intro is great. The rest that could use a little work, not much though.
*The history section is almost written like a list. Almost each paragraph starts with "In 19XX..." (in fact two paragraphs in a row start "In 1906..."). More variety is required.
*The Uses section needs an intro before jumping right into subsections.
*The Hazards section needs more info, not just links in a list.
So, we're looking at the History, Uses, and the Hazards section requiring some reworking. --Born2flie 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Perhaps we should make a new article called History of helicopters, opinions? TheBlazikenMaster 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the History section is that large at this point. Perhaps it could be expanded more, but I don't really know. Perhaps we could look at the whole article, especially those areas with linked articles, and see if some sections could be trimmed. - BillCJ 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look that large if it is written in prose. User:Anthony Appleyard made it more of a list because he felt it helped people find a specific date/inventor/event easier than a prose format (which is more fitting for an encyclopedic article). See discussion above. --Born2flie 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias are for people to get information from, and to me, the best form for an encyclopedia is the clearest format to look for information in, even if that means a table instead of essay-type prose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which totally ignores WP:MOS beyond the intent of WP:IGNORE. Care to show us an FA-Class article that has a History section laid out as you have unilaterally edited this one? --Born2flie (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the comments from the peer review, I'm for reconverting it to straight prose. I know the aritcle will never advance to FA-status, if even past B-class, with lists in sections that aren't normally listed. If Anthony doesn't like it, he's free to file arbitration against me this time. If you want to work on a prose version elsewhere (or have it all ready, I'll add the prose in place of the list so my involvement is clear, if you'd like. - BillCJ 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See my Sandbox article. There are some recent additions to the namespace article, mostly model makers who may or may not have contributed to the body of aerodynamic knowledge about helicopters, and otherwise appear to have done little to further the development. So, those have not been added into the history on my sandbox page. --Born2flie 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yep it needs some subsections like that or something by time/years. -Fnlayson 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also taken care of in my Sandbox article, although I'd like to rename one. There is a text comment to indicate so. --Born2flie 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I added some subsections in the article based on your sandbox article.  It's a start.  Adjust as needed. -Fnlayson 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Maybe add another subsection label for "modern helicopters" or something like that and convert the lists back to paragraph form. -Fnlayson 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section looks awfully large. 

message: What I don't understand is why can't we have an external link to a website about "how to become a helicopter pilot"? I mean, they are useful for many people looking for information about helicopters. And I know it's useful for people that wants to learn to fly a helicopter. So my question is why not? Surely there must be websites somewhere that tell a lot more than "HowTo". TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, it is because such links are commercial in nature and violate the guideline for WP:EL. --Born2flie 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Born2flie. - BillCJ 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The deal is that it has been removed from the External links section for almost a year and continually gets edited back in. The site is primarily to showcase an individual's designs in aeronautics and it has been suspected that its continued inclusion in the articles it is linked from on Wikipedia is for self-promotion and violates WP:COI. When the COI concerns have been raised in the edit history, the editor(s) who insert the link appear to wait a period of time before attempting to reinsert the link without a justification for why the link contributes to the article. Simply because it has a tool that the editor thinks might be useful to someone, doesn't really meet the intent of WP:EL. Long story short, the site is a self-promotion site for Michael Duffy and his designs and the continued insistence in a link's inclusion in an article without justification for how it contributes to the article implies a conflict of interest. --Born2flie (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. A reading of the site shows that it is a promotional page for a piece of analytical software. We're not here to provide advertising for software. What the editor in question also doesn't seem to understand is that having a link here will not help his site gain prominence on search engines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Born, Akradeki,
I suppose you are used to being spammed to death, so you are constantly on the defensive.  I accept your decision to remove the link; I however, believe that 90% of what I C on wikipedia, including the Rotorcraft and Helicopter articles have promotion for companies and products all over them.  My intent is not to promote and therefore withdraw my request for inclusion.  I don't care about search engines, and page rank, I thought this would be helpful for others.  I personally use wikipedia for tools and advice for design, so thought this would be helpful.  --AeroEngineer2008 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links. 

message: Trekphiler tagged the statement, "In 1923, the rotorcraft that became the basis for the modern helicopter began to take shape, in the form of an autogyro." I have inserted "rotor" after "modern helicopter" to clarify. Focke had extensive experience with C.19 and C.30 autogyros prior to building the Fw 61 and the Fa 223, Flettner had designed and built the Fl 184 autogyro prior to designing the Fl 282 Kolibri, and it was Cierva's advances that inspired Breguet to return to rotorcraft and the helicopter after early disappointments. It is not intended to show the autogyro as ancestral, despite the fact that the helicopter has eclipsed the autogyro, but rather that that the helicopter owes the design of the rotor system that made it successful to Cierva's successful development of the autogyro. The two are inextricably linked through Cierva. --Born2flie 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan de la Cierva and the helicopter 

message: In the case of fantail and fenestron these TM marks are properly used by WikiMS standards, because they are separate designs owned by different companies.  I read the Manual of Style and it should be indicated.  These are brand name systems.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MOSTM#General rules: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). That seems pretty clear that they aren't to be used. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree, we are distinguishing among brands of ducted rotor systems.  It is for context, otherwise only ducted fan should be used.  But it's your articles, do as you see fit.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not my article - if it was, it would look alot differrent, beginning with the silly TOC on the right! No one owns wikipeida articles, tho we may live on some pages! And I have reverted you a second time, have I? I won't unless the consensus is to remove the TM marks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ♠ Well I figured you must be angry with me about the article, because I'm working on it and you come blazing through making changes like I'm interfering here somehow.  I can go work on other articles, it don't make me no nevermind.  Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, no, I'm not angry. I just go down my watchlist and review changes as I come to them. If I stomped your edits, I'm sorry. I have over 3400 articles on my watchlist, and a bad memory, so it's better for me to just deal with pages as I come to them on the list. For future reference, you might consider using the  header tag on an article when you're making a series of changes over a period of time (say 20 mins to an hour). I'm using one the tag now at Cessna 172, if you want to see it in action. I'm shuffling pics around, and having to preview each move to see how it looks, and that's takes awhile. - BillCJ (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just went in and changed the whole Cessna page. haha  J/K.  Never knew about that inuse tag.  I'll have to make a note of that one.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademarks 

message: I have looked at the "helicopter" Leonardo Da Vinci invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A hovercraft uses its fans to trap air in a air cushion, hence the alternate term "air-cushion vehicle". Clearly, this is not what Da Vinci's design did. It used a spinning spiral to try to create lift. While not a very efficent design, it is accepted as as ancestor of the modern helicopter by most, if not all, aerodynamicists. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hovercraft, not helicopter? 

message: I found something that could be added to the history section, although I'm not sure of the exact source: "A slovenian blacksmith Vinko Kristan used his free time to create a flying machine, his own version of a helicopter, as far back as 1926. His inquisitive neighbours called the contraption the "samofrč", meaning self-flyer. It was composed of a piramid shaped body, made of wood and canvas, on the top of which a propeller was mounted. It was moved using pedals and had another smaller propeller on the side used as a stabilizing device. It flew about half a meter to one meter above the ground, it's said that one night it even went over one meter. It couldn't have been of much practical use however, because it probably required aggressive pedaling." 195.210.207.174 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thing to add... 

message: It has useful information, but I don't know whether or not it's trivial, discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it could be used to eliminate the damn Trivia...I mean, Subject in popular culture sections in the helicopter articles, I say let it in. --Born2flie (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's useful, then it probably won't be allowed by the Delete-gods. I wish I were just being funny, but I have a feeling I'm dead-one! - BillCJ (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow, I don't even remember WHY I asked this to begin with. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.rotaryaction.com Rotary Action - guide to helicopters in movies and TV 

message: I really think that :Image:HE2G8.jpg needs to be enlarged. At the default settings, it's very difficult to make out any sort of detail, and its usefulness suffers. I tried to enlarge it twice and was changed back twice, apparently due to concerns regarding WP:MOS#Images. But, the MOS states that specifying the size of images with extreme aspect ratios may be appropriate in order to improve page layout, which seems to be the case here. Not a huge deal, just wondering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it personally old since it's black and white. But I know what your point is, it's hard to see what the image is about when it's in the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the intent of the guideline is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia with a screen size that makes the photo look small. If you give the thumbnail a mandatory size of 300px and view the article at a 640x480 screen resolution, the pic will take up almost half the width of the page at that point. It can give an image more prominence that is perhaps misleading as to an image's actual importance to that part or the rest of the article. Frankly, I think the picture is poor quality and cropped badly (I don't believe that old pictures were that dimension, but possible). Granted, quality is a function of the age of the subject and the available source material, but this is the picture we're left with (unless someone can find a better one?). A custom image size for this image should probably be discussed here among the editors and a consensus reached on just which size would be agreeable to most. --Born2flie (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: I think the "Verification Needed" is unnecessary, because in this case the elimination of personnel injury potential is self-evident. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTAR is a tradeoff. The "self-evident" safety advantage has been debated ad nauseum in professional pilot and engineering circles. I had to look hard to find a single report about an individual being struck by the tail rotor, so how big of an issue is this? Some statistics of number of tail rotor strikes resulting in personal injury/fatality to gauge how much of a problem this has been versus how the NOTAR impacts in the realm of safety would be a nice verification. Otherwise, it is simply a statement that parrots the manufacturer's claims and the section becomes an advertisement for NOTAR. --Born2flie (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTAR Safety Attributes 

message: Starting a new section to ease viewing and response (and to reduce the impression that we are hovering without purpose).
1. I recognize that a reader could be confused by the usage of "upon reflection" and misunderstand its meaning. Therefore, as I have said, let us remove it. However, I am inexplicably driven to correct such a misunderstanding of grammar (it must be a subliminal message in the monobook skin):
 Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.
* "upon is a preposition, which creates "a relationship between other words in a sentence"  or, if you prefer an internal source, "indicates a relation between things mentioned in a sentence"
** this means that "upon reflection" is a prepositional phrase
** the phrase's surface position is purely syntactic and has no semantic relevance - meaning there is no effect on meaning
*** these sentences are semantically the same: "Upon reflection, Todd ate a sandwich."; "Todd, upon reflection, at a sandwich."; "Todd ate a sandwich upon reflection."; "Todd ate, upon reflection, a sandwich." In fact, the commas are there because I like commas (and to clearly separate the phrase); they are (mostly) not strictly necessary. See: "This morning Todd ate a sandwich."
** Therefore, "upon" is defining a temporal relationship: First "reflection" happens, then "Todd eats a sandwich".
* So now we are back at "reflection", what is it and who is doing it. (And using "reflecting" instead would make no difference.)
** reflection is "serious thought or consideration" (Per New Oxford American) and is based on the idea of bending your perception to look back at or within yourself, like looking in a mirror.
** The subject that indulges in reflection needs to be some thinking being(s). In the sentence, there is only one to choose ("suspects") because neither helicopters nor prisons can think (at least not yet - queue the RoboCop-ter!).
*** You rightfully point out that the subject does not have to be in the sentence, it could be implied. However, explicit subjects are usually preferable.
**** Possible subjects beside "suspects" include: the speaker ("Upon my reflection") and the reader ("Upon your reflection") and any number of possible groupings ("Upon the Senate's reflection", "Upon Aunt Sally's reflection", and so on). All these sound a bit artificial because they act against the natural inclination to attach to a subject within the sentence.
**** Implied subjects are usually only valid in writing an imperative statement, and even then the usual implied subject is the reader: "Go read a book on grammar."
**** I would argue that the subject cannot be the speaker, as Wikipedia is not written in the first-person. The best one can imagine for a speaker is "the collective of all editors", but I think that is not something that will come to the mind of the reader. I think you, reading that sentence in isolation and knowing it is written by me, are able to imagine a speaker, but a reader doing so in the context of reading the article would need to engage in some linguistic convulsions to do so.
*** In general usage, I find that in cases where there is not a clear subject already in the sentence, "upon reflection" is meant to attach to a generic "person" (basically, some arbitrary thinking entity) because the important part is what is being reflected upon. Common usage like "Upon reflection, it seems clear that ..." is not talking about what the writer thinks unless the writer is writing in first person. In scholarly works, it implies anyone... "After one thinks about it, it seems clear" - but notice that "After I think about it, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes." is nonsensical.
* I hope that suffices... I have exhausted my ability to discuss prepositional phrases for at least two weeks. (and exposed myself to everyone pointing out my grammatical mistakes in anything I write) --Marcinjeske (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go back and clarify the fact that prison means that they aren't suspects, they're convicts. If it was a jailbreak, then they could be suspects, although they could also be convicts at a jail as well. More properly we could call them inmates. And again, all kinds of justification for a poorly worded sentence inserted where it made no sentence agreement in the paragraph, because the subject of the paragraph was talking about police use of helicopters. If you had previously been discussing Tom, then referencing Tom's reflection and subsequent action might be acceptable. Additionally, "Upon reflection" is more often used to describe a change in thought or action by the subject based upon their reflection. You've used it to simply suggest (without a source) that the use of helicopters by inmates to escape prison is a thought generated by their remembering how they were captured. So, I would say, again, that this is an improper use of "Upon reflection...". I think you're just too married to how you want to present that sentence, and I question how much more you're going to add to this library trying to make it acceptable. --Born2flie (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reflections on Grammar, Style, and Links

message: I just added a whole bunch of style tags to the page to flag up for editors stuff that really does need to be done to improve the wiki-ness of the article.  Some sections have no reference at all, many sections are quite light on references.  Some of it is just lists (which is understandable at this stage, as the lists were created to make a record of the sort of content that needs to be included).  While there is some content in sections that needs to be fleshed out, those sections have those tags, and style seems to be the big thing that needs a push at this stage imo. Petemyers (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Style tags

message: I am proposing that these be added to the uses section in place of the related item from the Other Uses list:
:Helicopters are used to transport passengers between heliports which provide facilities for passenger processing, refueling, and maintenance. In urban areas, helicopter airlines serve to quickly shuttle business people and the rich within the city or to destinations in the region and often offer regular service to local airports. Helicopter passenger service is used to connect isolated communities in mountains or between islands or bring personnel to at-sea facilities like oil platforms. Although passenger helicopters in use are common models, designs for backpack helicopters to serve as personal transport have been devised along with attempts at human-powered helicopters. When war or unrest disrupts more typical routes, governments use helicopters to evacuate personnel and civilians out of danger. Helicopters also transport government officials and other dignitaries when time is of the essence and travel by motorcade is inappropriate.
:Helitours are conducted for the purpose of tourism or sport (heliskiing). Operators may take customers on flights for the purpose of sightseeing or thrill-seeking. Helicopter operating companies will use their fleet to offer a wide variety of services, for business and government as well. Film studios use them to capture panoramic scenes or fast action for motion picture photography. Helicopters also provide aerial photography for mapmaking, surveillance, scientific, and artistic purposes. They are important to the energy industry which needs to explore possible drilling sites.
Let's with those... if there is some sort of view that the writing is trash... well, I welcome you to improve it... if need be, we can set up a user sub page to allow for more fluid editing.--Marcinjeske (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Uses Paragraphs 

message: In the switch from BC to CE & back, did somebody forget there's an 800 yr difference? Somehow, I doubt there were helicopters 2400 years ago...  Trekphiler (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I feel [[Angel (TV series)|old]] 

message: Whole pages is nothing more than stupid rotor talk.  Whoever is doing the editing is doing a poor job.
Most of this stuff is redundant: Just like MOST Wiki articles.
People want to know HOW THEY WORK.   Why do you have to go to 'how things work' to find our how the helicopter functions.
There is NO MENTION OF SWASHPLATES in this article.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.149.236 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why wikipedia stinks 

message: Dear users. Unfortunately, many of us editors about inventions arent aware of an important category: :Category:Inventions by country. This article fits Russian inventions, because Sikorsky was Russian, and American, because most of the design was done there.
If you have the question of but wait a minute!!! Many people took part in thar invention, many theries. To who of them it goes?
To the one who is widely considered. For example. The Tank. Before the British made the tank that became commercialy succesful many people built models of it. Some succesful. But the British made it really famous, commercialy succesful. They made the model that counts, lets say it like that. Thats why the tank goes to British inventions.
ANother point. If a man is of one nationality, but made the invention in another country, the invention fits both categories, and that is the case here. See the example of Rubber band. It enters the category of English inventions even though it was invented in Australia, why? It's inventor was English.
Please be aware of that type of categorising to. Kostan1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Igor Sikorsky developed the first production helicopter.  That does not mean he "invented" it though.  Read the history section here.  Also, provide an edit summary with your edits.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same thing as the British havent invented the tank. Or Lodygin built the lamp before Edisson, but it goes to Edison. The one who managed to produce it is a strong factor. It goes to who it is widely considered to. I dont know how to do the edit summary. But your point is realy strong and that is the main problem with those categories. It has cruel critereas. Every invention had many developers, and the rest of the series. Kostan1 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Making an edit summary is easy, notice the bar between the big box where you make your edit and "[Save page] [Show preview] [Show changes]"? That's where you put your edit summary. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian and American inventions category 

message: Measurement: Even though I'm from the United States, I recommend metric be the standard for this article because helicopter flight began in Europe. The history portion of the article will have to be edited to comply. 
Spelling: It seems that most of the article is written in U.S. English. I can't determine if that is because of a weight of U.S. editors on the article or because the article was originated by a U.S. editor. I've edited other articles that utilised British spellings and had no real issues contributing. My recommendation is that unless it is shown to be originated by an editor using a different variation of English, that U.S. English be used. Not a nationalist matter for me, but rather a practical matter of not wanting to hunt through the history to determine who started it and what variant they used, and then have to weed through the article to ensure all the spellings are changed, although if someone else desired to do that and share the diff so it can be established one way or the other... --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like a better explanation for why you reverted my substitution in of convert templates for all the figures. You pointed to WP:MOSNUM but reading this there is nothing there to say that conversion templates should not be used on small numbers. The conversion templates make sure the conversions are accurate and help keep the format consistent. Prior to my doing all that work there were some values in text, some numerical, some had the units written in full, some abbreviated. It seems like my edit was only an improvement and all that reverting it achieved was wasting my time. It certainly didn't deteriorate the article in any way. Unless you can explain why having them is a bad thing, or provide a valid reason for me not to revert them back in, that is what I will do. Mfield (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Your application of  wasn't quite universal throughout the article. Since you weren't going to take the care to ensure that all numbers were converted, and because the MOSNUM-compliant numbers had been changed by applying , I reverted and hardcoded the conversions into the text of the article. Also,  defaults to the SI spelling, and we just started discussing whether or not to use the U.S. or the Queen's English standard for spelling. I think your application of  was a waste of your time in the first place, and reverting back to your version will likely be another waste of your time. Unless you can apply the guideline more thoroughly and account for more than one section of the guideline, we will probably be discussing mine and your actions on this article again. --Born2flie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If all it would have taken was for you to add the few that I may have missed (or the few that could not be converted such as horsepower data, then the better course of action on your part would have been to do that rather than to revert all. What spelling type is used is a separate issue that could be readily changed later, even easier in fact as would be simple to do a search and replace once the  templates were universal. I am not going to get into a pointless debate about it though, if you'd prefer to revert good faith edits without discussion, correcting the simple errors or contacting me to point out I had missed a few, then I would rather leave you to it. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, if you had simply added the units that hadn't been previously converted and "hardcoded" into the text, and if you had spelled out the units that were abbreviated instead of text, it would've been a much simpler edit that took less of your precious time than rewriting all most measurements in the History section using . --Born2flie (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  The convert template has a US spelling option and a bunch of other options, but nothing for spelling a number as a word, e.g. 2 -> two. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of words instead of numbers wasn't standardized before I edited it either. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is a part of the guideline that you seem to have been previously unaware of, and that parts of the article had been in compliance with prior to your edits. --Born2flie (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not think that the choice between numbers and words has a lot to do with the context, i.e. whether the figure is being used as a number of items or an empirical value for e.g a height. So to prefer "Two helicopters" over "2 helicopters" and "the aircraft attained an altitude of 6 feet" over "six feet"? Mfield (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an adoption of a writing standard that says that those numbers should be spelled out in text whether it be for a unit of measure or a count of objects. I'm familiar with that standard, remembering it from grade school, and having come across it later in other venues, so I don't think it is simply a preference for context. There are exceptions listed in the MOS guideline, but none of them really applicable to this article, as far as I can determine from the article's context. --Born2flie (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements and English Variant 

message: I'd like to propose that 'airplane' should be removed from the article and, where approriate, replaced with 'Fixed wing aircraft'. The reason for this is simple, The spelling 'airplane' Is only correct in North America and as such is an incorrect spelling with in the commonwealth and to many non-native speakers of english. Its use makes the article read badly outside of N.America and the Wiki article is titled 'Fixed wing Aircraft'. (Morcus (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IAW WP:MOS. Thanks for pointing that out. --Born2flie (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Changing from a common term to a less common one.  Got to make everybody happy, whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the word 'airplane' be used? 

message: I concur with Born2flie that ths addtion of the comments on tiltrotors is not needed. Encyclopedias need to be as consise as possible without strying into tangental areas, especially in an article that is allready lengthy. Also, introducing another item in a complex discussion is likely to confuse a reader who does not yet understand the concept of a helicopter rotor, rather than make it easier to understand. - BillCJ (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiltrotors are still included in the "Antitorque configurations" section lower down in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiltrotors 

message: # Wired article which references 400BC date: Petemyers (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of sources for Chinese toy date

message: # A blog entry mentioning that this is a "popular idea":  Petemyers (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, lots of the sources referenced are almost word for word the same as the WP article.  Is this because the paragraphs on this were originally ripped off from somewhere?  Or because a lot of these sources are actually ripping off Wikipedia (giving us a big circular loop of references?).  I'm VERY tempted to suggest that we comb through this article and make sure that we use as many published sources as possible - and only web sources that are really really good/old. Petemyers (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of sources for 1463 painting

message: I'm a new contributor/editor, so I don't yet have permission to edit a semi-protected article like "Helicopter". There is a very good book that I feel should be added to the bibliography section. The citation is:
Chiles, James R. The God Machine: From Boomerangs to Black Hawks: The Story of the Helicopter. New York: Bantam Books, 2007.
Would someone who has full editing rights please consider adding this citation to the bibliography? Thanks.
Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What info do you intend to add from or cite using that source? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The early chapters include detailed information on early, failed helicopter designs. Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good.  That's book has been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be added to a Further Reading section unless/until it is actually used as a reference. Failed helicopter examples, unless they are notable (and I suggest here that notability means that the failure led to a success, such as Cierva's), should probably not be included, because there are so many more early failures than successes. --Born2flie (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: * You're welcome to move to Further reading section.  One policy page (WP:Cite) seems to suggest a general reference is OK if not footnoted.  But some other policy says an unused book should go in Further reading.  I'll add a book with the intent to footnote to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Helicopter article bibliography 

message: I was glancing this page and I noticed that heliportable exploration (reflection seismology/seismic exploration) is not on the page.  I work in this field and helicopters are heavily used today.  Just thought I would mention it and I think it should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 

message: The Kamov Ka56, Dornier Do 32, Half pint helicopter are not decribed nor have articles. Information avilable at www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/dorn_do-32.php, http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1960_1969/dornier_do32_1961.html, http://www.unicopter.com/1009.html, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5465210978317572524
Please describe, make articles, ...
81.245.90.148 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You also forgot the Hiller YROE. But the single-place helicopters are a niche of helicopter development, that is they don't really contribute to advancing rotorcraft design, they usually draw on the available technology that exists to make them viable (or not). The Ka-56 was never developed and flown, so it is basically an airframe mockup waiting for an engine to be developed. "Half pint helicopter" was the newsreel headline, not the helicopter's designation or even a popular name. The newsreel is about the Dornier Do 32 and names it right in the video. Unless someone like yourself comes along to build articles about certain niche aircraft, they usually wait to be created. I will welcome you back anytime, to start an article about the Dornier Do 32 or the Kamov Ka-56! --Born2flie (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1-man helicopters 

message: * Anthony, images in this article have previously been pruned when additions have begun to overwhelm sections. The Uses section is one such section that becomes easily overwhelmed. I previously placed a text comment note in the section in the hopes that we could eliminate this need to eventually trim this section, especially of images that are not composed or exposed as well as other images. 
*:Since the article section already has a picture of a helicopter conducting a hoist rescue, perhaps there should be a discussion as to which one belongs and which one should go, especially since you feel inclined to include the newer one. The image in question was also added to the Rescue article two minutes before it was added to the helicopter article and seems to be indiscriminate adding of an image only because it was related to both articles, despite its existence on the commons since December 2008. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the caption. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The movie Things to Come (1936) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028358/, based on the book Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells, uses a Helicoptor in its movie.  I was looking at pictures of helicopters designed prior to and after 1936, and noticed a distinct change in the shape of architecture of the Helicopters.  I can't say whether the movie was influenced by future concept designs or whether future concept designs were inspired, in part, by this movie, but I think it definitely adds to the richness of the article.  I have a picture here http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7905/helicoptershapeofthings.jpg, which might be interesting to include on the site when referring to design.
--Drdoom5081 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction 

message: Hello,
I would like to inform the editors that the Greek word «έλικ», used for rotor, is wrong. The correct ancient greek word is «έλιξ» with a «ξ» instead of «κ». The word «έλιξ» in modern greek language, is «έλικας». 
I include the definition found in the modern Greek Dictionary "Τεγόπουλος/Φυτράκης - Ελληνικό Λεξικό", (p.239 Δ΄ έκδοση - 4th edition, 1991), , for the word «ελικόπτερο» (helicopter):
ελικόπτερο (το) ουσ. [<έλιξ + πτερόν>]: είδος αεροπλάνου χωρίς φτερά, που κινείται με έλικα προσαρμοσμένο σε κατακόρυφο άξονα.
Thank you,
Christodoulias Athanasios,
Greece  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.50.146 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to update that, please provide a reliable source with the changed version in the text (WP:CITE). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Word edit