Jump to content

Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge IAR 330

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the article was not merged. --Born2flie 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Seems to be only a license-built aircraft and there is precedent to simply mention those aircraft under the variant they were license-built as. --Born2flie 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - BillCJ 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think there is a quite large potential to expand this article, especially considering the new IAR 330 naval helicopter variant(Puma NAVAL);also the IAR 330 SOCAT has large modifications made by IAR in cooperation with Elbit Systems(Israel) and it's quite different comparing to Aérospatiale Puma original version. I suggest we should wait until 15 April to make a final decision.

Eurocopter Tigre 16:25, 16 March 2007 (EET)

  • Oppose See also my vote on the suggested merge of IAR 316 into Aérospatiale Alouette III. Mentatus 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are a large number of differences between the Puma and the IAR 330, even some improvements. Many other online sources differentiate between the two. I recently bought a book about miliary helicopters, and in the book the author even found the need to put the IAR 330 and Puma, as well as the IAR 316 and Alouette III, on different pages from one another. Many consider them very unique and would expect seperate articles, just as we already have for the Atlas Oryx, a development of the Puma that deserves its own article, as it has many differences over the French Puma.--SAWGunner89 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

[edit]

Perhaps we should consider a clearer flying image for the infobox rather than a green helicopter flying past a green background. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switched out the image, it should do the job FOX 52 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks thats a lot better. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we re-introduce the File:SA330J BGS 1985.JPEG into the arcticle? or that would be to many FOX 52 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operators

[edit]

It would be nice to expand the operators sections but can we have a consensus to move them into one list per standard project practice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to differ from the guidelines, one list is the establish norm now. Kyteto (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite confusing with two different refs, that support conflicting operating numbers. - ei; The Chilean Army with 11 SA 330H’s, & 3 SA 330L’s according to Mr. Andrade’s Militair (1982). Then there’s the current ref. which has them at 4. Indonesia starts out with six SA 330J’s then ends up with 15. Are these also the “J” variant or are a different variant purchased from a former operator? Kenya is stated to have 4, and again current numbers (2013) are at 14 etc, etc, etc…Moreover I see no text in the WP: Operators section regarding the inclusion of numbers and/or variants. FOX 52 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly normal to list the variants and numbers delivered, the later flight references show the current situation so will obviously differ from those originally bought up to 1982. We just need to explain the differences in numbers, that is more have been bought probably second-hand. Remember this is still being worked on as we need some reliable references for former operators, etc. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should reflect the current numbers, and your original purchase numbers should probably go in the Operational history section.FOX 52 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In most articles it is unlikely that more than one or two operators get a mention in the operational history sections. Not sure that the current numbers are of that great importance in these type articles as that is left to the operator articles but others may think differently, you are welcome to raise it at the aircraft project for discussion. In some articles where the type has not had much of an operational history then it is not unknown for the operators sections to be expanded with a paragraph or two on each operator so it has never been just a list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we stride for accuracy, then the current number are relevant. What you have up can be misleading as there is no explanation on past and current numbers. And there lies the problem. FOX 52 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading is a bit strong as we are in the middle of improving the article, although I cant see what is misleading about saying how many aircraft were bought its fairly standard in aircraft articles. We dont really have current in any article as we need to have a reference fixed in time, current is not really an encyclopedic concept. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK let see what happens over time - side note you've moved the Romanian Naval variant over to the IAR 330 side, but the source shows it as SA 330. Something I missing? FOX 52 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source has probably made a slip on this one. The whole point of IAI building the Puma under license was so that the Romanian armed forces could get their Puma-related needs serviced by their own domestic manufacturer; it would be contradictory to buy in Pumas from abroad when such lengths were made to take in the Puma design, adapt and even make improvements, and then to just buy in (differently configured, making them harder to maintain) Pumas from overseas in additional to your own. The problem arises that some groups don't distinguish between the SA 330 and the IAI 330, what is written as an SA 330 there is indeed likely to a 330, but much more plausible that it is an IAI 330. This becomes more likely, even ignoring issues of mixing fleets making maintenance difficult and more costly, because the original SA 330 was not as suitable for naval operations as the IAI 330 was - the domestic version was not only more plausible due to nationalism reasons, but plain practicality/suitability to the job as well. It just does not add up that it actually was a group of SA 330s, just that the publication didn't maintain the distinguishment between the types. Kyteto (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs http://www.iar.ro/naval.html http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/iar-330l-puma-helicopter-romania/ MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rig support

[edit]

Bristow operated at least 12 SA 330Js and probably more on oil-support flights at Aberdeen and with its various subsidaries around the world (Nigeria, Malaya and Australia) might be worth a section if anybody has any reliable sources. Was it ever used in the Gulf of Mexico or elsewhere in similar operations to Bristows ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been giving that some thought before this; especially after a recent reading of some of the WP:aviation guidelines which seem to endorse having a 'Civil' section discussing major civil operators. I can't say for sure, whether I'm mis-rememebering or getting muddled with the tons of other Puma stuff I've been rapidly reading during this overhaul; but I think Bristow may have had a fleet of 30 or so, easily making them an 'operator of significance'. I'll look into this, see what I can scrap together from an internet trawl. Kyteto (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've scratched together something rough; it'd be nice to see more though, for instance on the other locations the type was operated in. Kyteto (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may provide some insight to more user and locals. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202033.html - FOX 52 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Losses in the Falklands

[edit]

The section "Operational history – Argentina" says: "all (six) were lost in the ensuing conflict". The rest of the section then describes how each one was lost and destroyed. In the section "Operational history – United Kingdom" on the other hand says that one SA 330J was captured by British forces (and thus not destroyed). Which is true? /Esquilo (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The six destroyed were Army helicopters the captured one was PA-12 of the Prefectua Naval Argentine no relation to the six destroyed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text says five army and one coast guard Puma was destroyed. /Esquilo (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AE-500 23 May 1982 destroyed by cannon fire from a Sea Harrier
  • AE-501 21 May 1982 damaged by canon fire from a Sea Harrier and destroyed on 26 May 1982 in a Harrier CBU attack.
  • AE-503 23 May 1982 crashed while avoiding a Sea Harrier
  • AE-504 3 Apr 1982 destroyed by Royal Marine gunfire on South Georgia
  • AE-505 9 May 1982 destroyed by a Sea Dart
  • AE-508 30 May 1982 destroyed by a missile.
  • PA-12 damaged by naval gunfire 3/4 May 1982 and left on the roadside near the Governor's Mansion, recovered back to the UK.

Perhaps some confusion as one of the Pumas was destroyed on South Georgia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that could explain it. However the faith of AE-501 is not mentioned in the text. 21 May is not mentioned at all and the engagement on the 23 May says one was shot down (AE-500), one crashed (AE-503) and one got away. /Esquilo (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kyteto (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review...

I'm not seeing anything that makes me think any of WP:GAFAIL apply.

Images

[edit]
The uploading user, [[1]], claims that Leoa's Photography is their own website. Should I interrogate them or pursue an internet register check? Kyteto (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. One way or another this needs to get sorted. RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:Images says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative, They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding ... and too many can be distracting. There's a lot of photos of essentially the same aircraft. Are these all really needed to aid the reader's understanding, or is this really just a gallery of aircraft pictures for decorative purposes?
I will remove a few, particularly the problematic one you've identified.

Source spot-check

[edit]

Picking 10% of the citations to check: 

>>> sorted(random.choices(list(range(1, 134)), k=13))
[10, 51, 62, 74, 77, 85, 89, 94, 109, 109, 110, 122, 123]
  • Indonesia also undertook domestic manufacturing of the SA 330. [ [10]
(10) Waldron, Greg (8 July 2011). "Eurocopter renews Indonesia partnership". FlightGlobal.
Verified
  • In 1969, Portugal emerged as an early export customer for the Puma, ordering 12 of the helicopters for the Portuguese Air Force ; Portugal would also be the first country to employ the Pumas in combat operations during the Portuguese Colonial War ; the type was used operationally to complement the smaller Alouette III helicopter fleet during the Angola and Mozambican wars of independence , the type had the advantages of greater autonomy and transport capacity over other operated helicopters. [ [51]
(51) Bosgra and Krimpen 1972, pp. 27–32.
I can't find a copy of this, so please send me a PDF of the relevant pages. Also, the citation is lacking. What is "Angola Comité". Is that a real publisher? Is this self-published or a vanity press?
The best summary of what the Angola Comité is/was is [2]; it was an anti-apartheid movement that worked with Amnesty International, amongst other organisations, and frequently published material, from simple posters to detailed written works, on the situation and events thereof, such as the conflict between Portugal and portions of its empire seeking independence. I'm not sure I can legally reproduce their work, however, I'll try to find a link. Kyteto (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think this is not a WP:RS. I've found a few used booksellers that carry the book, but they all have minimal information, which generally makes me suspicious. The National Library of Australia has a non-circulating copy. What really convinces me that it's not a RS is that https://africanactivist.msu.edu/organization/210-813-693/ says Bosgra was a leader of the Angola Comité, which would make this a WP:SPS.
  • The first two Pumas for the Royal Air Force were delivered on 29 January 1971, [ [62]
(62) "World News" Archived 2013-05-16 at the Wayback Machine. Flight International, Vol. 99, No. 3230, 4 February 1971, p. 144.
Verified in (63)
  • In 2002, six ex-South African SA 330L were purchased by Britain to extend the type's service life. [ [74]
(74) Penney Flight International 26 November – 2 December 2002, p. 74.
Your other citations to Flight International include a URL, can you add that to this one so I can find it?
This is a citation to a physical print source, and not one that I have. I am trying and failing to find an online citation; not aided by Flight International previously losing their mind over Wikipedia and destroying access to their archives... Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hansard alternative source found, now added to article. Kyteto (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this was subsequently cut to 22, [ [77]
(77) "Upgraded Puma HC2 to enter final flight test phase." Archived 2012-09-20 at the Wayback Machine Flightglobal, 11 July 2012. Retrieved: 29 August 2012.
This is behind a paywall (as is the archive.org version). Please send me a copy so I can verify it.
The archive.org link loads fine for me, I haven't paid them for access or logged in, can you try again please? Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure what happened the first time, but I've got it now. Verified. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the type took over the duties of Bristow's retiring Westland Wessex helicopters in 1981. [ [85]
(85) "Air Crash Firm Scraps 'Risky' Helicopter Fleet". The Herald. Newsquest. 10 November 1981. p. 1.
I can't find this, please send me a copy.
I cannot find this either. Seems to be an offline physical source. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial production version for the French Army Light Aviation. Powered by 884 kW (1,185 hp) Turbomeca Turmo IIIC4 engines. 132 purchased by France.[89]
(89) Lake 2001, p. 101.
I cannot find this, please send me a copy.
I don't own a copy. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified
  • Prototype with "fenestron" tail rotor.[94]
(94) Lake 2001, p. 106.
I cannot find this, please send me a copy.
I don't own a copy. Kyteto (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified
  • Argentine Coast Guard[109]
(109) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 40". Flightglobal Insight. 2019. Archived from the original on 1 January 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.
  • Gendarmerie[110]
(110) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 42". flightglobal.com. Archived from the original on 21 January 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.
  • South African Air Force[122]
(122) "World Air Forces 1987 pg. 84". flightglobal.com. Archived from the original on 16 May 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2013.
This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.
  • Togolese Air Force[123]
(123) ""World's Air Forces." Archived 2012-10-24 at the Wayback Machine Flight International, 5–11 December 1990, p. 76
This verifies that they had one at one time, but doesn't support the "former operator" claim.


(gotta run now, I'll pick this up later) RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished my spot-checks. There's some sources I noted above that I could not access, so please send me a scan, PDF, etc (or a link to someplace I can find them on-line is fine). You can email that via the link on my user page. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyteto just want to make sure you've seen this. RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tangential discussion hidden
So for this article to become a GA editors are required to violate copyright? I originally added this reference, but if offline sources are not permitted then this has serious implications about the viability of the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on my talk page, WP:GAN/I#R3 requires that I spot-check references. Since I don't have direct access to the source, I'm asking for a copy so I can complete my review. This is not a copyright violation; copyright law has always recognized performing reviews as fair use. See for example, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html:

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1986 (17 U.S. Code § 107) states that fair use of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

. The review I need to perform certainly fits that definition. RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who originally added the one of the references, I am not prepared to take steps that I consider to be a breach of copyright - there is certainly enough pages of Lake that are cited that copying all of them would breach what is allowable under Fair Dealing (not all editors are only subject to US copyright laws UK rules are not the same). If the process prohibits offline sources, and enforces ownership of the article, then you might as well delete it - the vast majority of the sources are print sources, and if they cannot be trusted, and the editors who added them cannot be trusted, then there will be little left - certainly not anything that would count as a "Good Article" by any sensible measure of the term. If the article needs to be gutted to satisfy the GA process than the process is broken, and I would want no part of the articleNigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish, looking at the list above, only two pages of Lake are being requested. That's well within the boundaries of UK copyright law. You're not being asked to publish the pages - you can simply send a photograph or scan of them to the reviewer by email. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must acknowledge that I am not based in the US, and cannot count that if I do end up having legal action taken against me that it'll only be US law that will be applicable. I'm frankly a little scared to circumvent paywalls. I will do what searches I can to find live sources for sought material. Kyteto (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I've been on the road for a few days and just got back last night, so I'm catching up on things. I had a generous offer from another editor (they can self-identify if they want) to track down the Lake source for me, and it just this moment popped up in my inbox, so I'll be able to work on that tonight. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyteto I had placed this on 7-day hold on October 4. That was 11 days ago. There's still a bunch of outstanding items that need to be resolved. Will you be able to wrap this up in the next day or two? RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can make progress without either diminishing the quality of the article or risking legal action again myself. I've responded to some items, but others... Kyteto (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm going to have to close this then. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not 'Airbus Helicopters'

[edit]

First, the history lesson; Aérospatiale morphed into Eurocopter who then became Airbus Helicopters. Eurocopter and Airbus developed and built the AS332 Super Puma, AS532 Cougar, and other spin-offs. It was only Aérospatiale, IAR and Westland who built the SA.330 Puma. Oh, and Atlas in South Africa who absolutely did not get any help from Aérospatiale. Not one bit. No sir!

So why do we have; Variants / Versions by other manufacturers:

  • Westland Puma HC Mk 1
  • Airbus Helicopters Puma HC.Mk 2

It was Eurocopter that thoroughly brought the old Pumas up to spec with new engines and a glass cockpit back in 2012. But I guess it is Airbus Helicopters who currently hold the Type certificate.

The only reference to support this choice of name is from the RAF themselves, but they are very much 'in bed' with Airbus Helicopters, and might also want to suggest that this equipment is brand-spanking new, so forgive me if I suggest they have a COI here. But you will have to dig deep for that detail; mostly they fudge the issue and simply call it 'Puma HC.2'.

Janes Information Services, who know a thing or two, describe the RAF's newer version as;

  • Westland-Aerospatiale SA 330E Puma HC2

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/uk-could-extend-puma-to-mitigate-delays-to-nmh-replacement-plan

I think Jane's (or Janes - take your pick) covers the situation perfectly enough, otherwise we could end up with a Boeing DC-3 (Boeing having taken over McDonnell-Douglas, who took over...). Nah!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aérospatiale_SA_330_Puma&oldid=1255008171"