Talk:Leonardo AW609

message: Can the BA 609 really be considered the "civil version of the Osprey" ?? It has a completely different fuselage, empennage etc. Osprey has thrice the max. weight, twice the range !--Iediteverything 12:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is the idea. When I did some work with Boeing on the V-22, the 609 team worked fairly closely with them. It's more along the concept of the Osprey, not the capability. They wanted an executive jet that can use helipads in major cities. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Born2flie: Shame when there is so much more information available out there than what is presented here. --18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: Rolled my sandbox into the main article. Added an infobox based on the UAV (the airplane infobox misses lots of details) and tried to convert lists into prose. There is still a lot of work to be done. - Davandron | Talk 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work overall. The reason the standard info box doesn't have all the information is that the Project Aircraft wants all the details in the Specifications tremplate. This decision was made before I began editing articles here. I am currently adding a specs template, hope to have it finished tonight. However, I'm not personally opposed to you using the UAV-type box, but you would need to talk about it on the WP:AIR talk pages first to get a consensus to use it. (I believe the UAVs fal under Project Military History, not WP:AIR, hence the diffrent box.) Thanks. - BillCJ 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes 

message: I think I've completed the missing specification data from the AW website. If people think it's complete the tag can be removed. FitzyJ (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is "Rotor diameter:" listed twice, with one value blank? Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem occurred because it was classified in the template as a rotorcraft, which causes the template to assume that a single rotor's diameter represents the widest dimension of the vehicle. I'll rework it to solve the issue, probably be presenting as a standard aircraft rather than rotorcraft. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, I've realised that won't work either. I'm going to replace the template with straight text, since there is no method of using the template that doesn't leave an unsightly mess. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The V-22 uses "aircraft specifications = copter", and it seems to work fine with special additions such as Wingspan and Width with rotors. Bell XV-15 also uses that template, whereas Bell XV-3 uses "aerospecs". Mil V-12 uses {{Aircraft specs, where wingspan works fine - maybe that template doesn't distinguish between plane or copter. Carter PAV has some display issues. Perhaps we should include an aircraft template called "Special" without rules. TGCP (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it "works", but look at the kludge of parameters in the V-22 article. Also, when changing format, I found a number of conversions that were simply wrong. The manual conversion issue has always been one of the things I disliked about the  template...it's completely unnecessary these days. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I would not consider FlightAware auto-generated figures as reliable sources. We have no idea whether they are accurate or not. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AgustaWestland_AW609&oldid=608980680&diff=prev
So it makes a large difference from conventional helicopters. Hcobb (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? What you wrote doesn't say that, and neither does the cited article. It does state it is easily overcome, which you oddly failed to mention. And tiltrotors are not helicopters, conventional or otherwise, so I really fail to see the pointbof this being added other than it seems to fit your tiltrotors-are-bad POV so common in your editing on the V-22 page. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Obviously I'm not referring to those edits, as you well know. It's too bad this edit wasn't of technical details, of which there are plenty in that article, which you could have added instead of what you did add. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The technical details of the reviewer's test flight was that the aircraft performed like a helicopter and turboprop, as expected, except for that one glitch, not previously mentioned in the article. Hcobb (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a reasonable point to mention, but it needs to be explained more to add some context to explain why this is worth mentioning and what is done about it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It hovers steadily above 20 feet, and the wing downwash is there at any hover height, so it's more likely to be a ground resonance issue or similar, but so far no ref for that. Helicopters usually hover nicely close to the ground, not sure how important it is to be able to do that at 10 feet rather than 20 feet? BTW, the pilot article has different dimensions than the wiki ? TGCP (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Tiltwings have higher disc loading than tiltrotors, so they should be less suited for hover. Compound helicopter is a halfway article for combos. TGCP (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  So 

message: I would like to move this page to "Leonardo AW609" Thermofan (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this page