Talk:Rotorcraft

message: to merge in the absence of objections. --Born2flie 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Born2flie: There is a merge recommendation on the article page. --01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: *Born2flie: I recommend the article Rotary-wing aircraft merge to Rotorcraft. --01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: "A qualified applicant receives a pilot license in the category of rotorcraft, with a class rating for either helicopter or gyrocopter, depending on which aircraft is to be flown."  This page is supposed to be about the kind of aircraft, not the United States FAA Catagory rotorcraft.  I'm changing the page to specify which information is US specific.
24.22.24.208 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be a bit more careful tossing around "bias" allegations. This probably more a case of where the source information came from, and how easy it is to access such information. A better term to use would be "US focus", which avoids the appearance of an anti-American bias on your part. So rather than putting down the original contributors, simply add more information. Be sure to use and cite reliable sources, or your additions will be removed. Also, be sure your changes to the info that is there doesn't stray from the original sources. - BillCJ (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, be aware that while many contries have Wikipedias in their own nation's primary languages, Americans are not so fortunate. They have to share Wikipedia with Britan, Canada, Australia, various other Englsih-speaking countries, and any one else in the world who (often barely) speaks English. There are almost 300 million speakers of Englsih as a first language in the USA, which most people from the rest of the world do not realize is more people than those in all other primairily-English-speaking countries. So please, be a litte patiet if the start of an article is primarily USA-focused. We're not from Latvia, you know - how many people from Africa or South America can read Latvian?  - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Bias

message: I am thinking off adding a new section explaining the various twin-rotor layouts etc. Also something on fixed-rotor hybrids/compounds, maybe as a subsection to it. Please see here for details. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SNECMA Coléoptère wasn't even a propeller-driven coleopter, much less a rotorcraft. The coleopter concept centers around an annular wing, not around a rotor turning about the fuselage. The tiltwing doesn't use rotors or even proprotors. It has propellers and is a VTOL aircraft, not a rotorcraft. The X-Wing, Triebfleugel, and PA-97 never made it to production, the Triebfleugel never made it beyond wind-testing of aerodynamic models. All per the Wikipedia articles and online references. --Born2flie (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new sections on rotor configurations

message: The image of the AS332 in the Infobox neither adequately demonstrates the unique configuration of a rotorcraft, because you cannot easily make out the rotor system due to the background, nor does it depict a unique use of a rotorcraft, because firebombing is primarily done by fixed-wing aircraft. I have not perused the commons or other helicopter images, but if an image is going to represent this article, I believe it should accomplish both. --Born2flie (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article image 

message: Steelpillow, the ducted rotor and ducted fan both sound like powered lift configurations. In fact, they may be variants of tiltwing and coleopter technologies if the duct is utilized as an annular wing and not just to maximize thrust of the rotor/fan. Do you want to move this section over to :Powered lift as well? --Born2flie (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I missed that one. I have now jammed it into the Powered lift page. The topic needs some thought to set out properly, but at least it's on the right page. As I now recall the original Coleopter concept was as an integrated wing-fuselage-propulsion system, with early plans assuming that a prop/rotor variant would be the first to fly. It was only when the marketplace showed little interest in the "cheap-and-cheerful" prop/rotor runabout and then the Atar turbojet delivered sufficient thrust sooner than the Coleopter team expected, that plans changed and the jet variant was built first. Of course you already know how reliable my memory is, nevertheless the story should illustrate how careful we need to be in documenting the little critter. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ducted rotor? 

message: Substituted at 04:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rotorcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828113804/http://www.sff.n.se/ to http://www.sff.n.se/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)