Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge IAR 330

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)

• 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)
• Support. - BillCJ 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • I certainly haven't seen any of those differences highlighted here in this article. --Born2flie 02:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Switched out the image, it should do the job FOX 52 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks thats a lot better. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Operators

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)

I see no reason to differ from the guidelines, one list is the establish norm now. Kyteto (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rig support

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)

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)

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)

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)

Losses in the Falklands

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)

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)

The text says five army and one coast guard Puma was destroyed. /Esquilo (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)