Talk:Bell UH-1N Twin Huey/Archive 1

Archive 1

A word of explanation

A couple of days ago, I ran into the UH-1Y Venom article by accident, and discovered it had almost no links in other articles on Bell Huey-derived models. In the course of fixing this ove3rsight, I was faced with were to put the links to the UH-1N, on which the UH-1Y is based. Info on the UH-1N was, for the most part, spread between the UH-1 Iroquois and Bell 212 articles. However, there was very little info on the very-long UH-1 page on the N. While the 212 page was focused primarily on the civil model, it did contain the shared development histroy of both the UH-1N and the 212.

Several months ago on the UH-1 talk page, several editors expressed a desire to see the article divided into several pages focused more on the individual Huey variants. In light of that discussion, I decided to go ahead and make a page on the UH-1N and military 212. I beleve there is more than enough info on the N and military 212s to make a good page. If this does not bear out, however, I would suggest merging this page with the UH-1Y Venom page, probably as the UH-1N/Y Twin Huey. THanks. - BillCJ 06:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Hey, I'm trying to think of how to integrate the fact that "Twin Huey" is a marketing and common name for the UH-1N and its derivatives. Officially, the UH-1N family retained the Iroquois name. I'm not sure which name should be more prominent to avoid confusion in either direction. I'm thinking about putting a line about the official name in the introduction, and also changing it in the variants listing, but leaving the infobox as it is now. Suggestions? Comments? -- Thatguy96 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Twin Huey should be in quotes in the early mentions at the least, since it is nickname. Seems something like adding the NATO names on Soviet jets. Add a sentence something like: The UH-1N was marketed by Bell (or commonly referred to) as "Twin Huey". I'm not familiar enough with it to say how common that nickname is. -Fnlayson 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. It is true that in US service the UH-1N was officially called the "Twin Iroquois", but in Canadian service it was officially called the Twin Huey. To make it more fun the Canadian specifications and orders were the original ones that created this aircraft and named it, but US DOD doesn't seem to like the Huey tag, at least officially. I would suggest leaving the name as it is and not in quotes, for these reasons. It is worth mentioning the different nomenclature in different national service, however. Ahunt 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Officially, according to DOD 4120.15-L Model Designation of Military Aircarft, Guided Missiles, and Rockets, the UH-1N's official name is simply "Iroquois" like its single engined brethren (only the UH-1Y officially carries a new name, Venom). Twin Huey and Twin Iroquois are marketing/unofficial monikers. -- Thatguy96 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As the one who chose the name of the article, I see Ahunt has got most of my reasoning right, namely the CH-135 is called the Twin Huey in CF service. In addition, at the time I split this page off of the UH-1 Iroquois page, there was a unsourced statement in the text that "Twin Huey" was the official name of the UH-1N in the USMC. That was later removed as we could not find corroboration. I also agree we should clarify the nomenclature in the article, but just leave the page as is. Also, if we used UH-1N Iroquois, it might be easer to confuse which variant is being reference (very minor point tho). - BillCJ 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bit more fuel to the Huey vs Iroquois name debate, with information from Lou Drendel's definitive book Huey (including a cited reference). The actual quote cited says of US Service personel: "In fact popular usage has rendered "Huey" immortality, while Iroquois remains the name of an indian tribe". - Ahunt 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's good to mention "Huey" is commonly used by US personnel. But that was never really in question. There are plenty of US aircraft with nicknames that are used more than their official names (Bone, Viper, Warthog, etc). Doesn't change anything... -Fnlayson 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair'nuff! I think those articles ought to mention the nicknames, but only when a credible reference can be found to support them. We have had some aircraft articles that abound with "original research" nicknames, heard at the local flying club, but undocumented! - Ahunt 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just don't think nicknames are a big of a deal. I'm all for documented nicknames. In this case Huey is part of the official CF name. -Fnlayson 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huey Creek?

I am a bit perplexed by the addition of a photo of a melt stream creek in the Antarctic that is apparently named after the Twin Huey. Is it normal to include geographical locations that are named after aircraft in the aircraft article? Is this really relevant to this article? I would like to hear from any editors who think this photo should be retained on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I moved that image down to relive some crowding. The same photo is used in the creek article. Maybe lose image, but add a link to Huey Creek in the See also section would be the minimum, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me! Anyone else? - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to User:BillCJ for doing all that. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

212 vs UH-1N

Is this article intended to show military operators not matter which helicopter model they use?. I ask because I was checking Category:Falklands War aircraft and the FAA's are not standard UH-1N neither those of the army. They are more likely to civilians 212s --Jor70 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See the For note at the top of the article page. That is there for questions such as this... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean For an overview of the whole Huey ... ? what that has to do ? Argentine Bell 212 are not equipped as the UH-1N (e.g. anti salt corrosion, diff comms, folding tail ), etc --Jor70 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The note that states "This article is about the military versions of the Bell 212. For the civil versions, see Bell 212." It was easier to do it that way than to try to investigate every user's models to determine what they actually were. It becomes even more confusing in that many ex-military airframes have been sold to civillian operators, escepcially the single-engine UH-1s. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, shoudnt the note read users instead of versions then ? Anyway, we should add a line under Operational History about the Falklands. Two FAA aircraft were used during the war, in spite of been 212s :-). --Jor70 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It now reads "This article is about the military versions and operators of the Bell 212. For the civil versions and operators, see Bell 212." That was the hatnote on the Bell 204/205 page, and I've copied it to the other UH-1 family articles. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

well done. thks! --Jor70 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We native English speakers often need help to make sure something is understood clearly by non-native English speakers. :) - BilCat (talk)

^ Thanks. Also, when you're familiar with things, you can miss the difference from what it says and what it is supposed to mean (generic 'you' here). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada

What's with "Foreign variants" and Canadian? It seems like the US is the foreign variant, and the Canadian isn't the foreign variant. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why you added an POV header?? Whatever, I renamed the headings. Please don't use article POV headers for such minor issues inthe future. A section header would be more appropriate, but it's still probably overkill. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

redirects

Should Twin Huey redirect here, and Bell Twin Huey redirect to Bell 212 ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No the civil version is called the "Twin 212" and not the twin Huey. Both should redirect here, done. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Screwy unit conversions

Article states:

• Maximum speed: 130 knots (135 mph, 220 km/h)
• Cruise speed: 110 knots (126 mph, 207.3 km/h)

These unit conversions are way off, and the errors are not even consistent between the two lines. I'm not sure which of the units (if any) are correct if it is 130 and 110 kts, the others should be 150 and 127 mph; and 241 and 204 km/hr. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Specs reversed with single heuy?

Are the specs here and for Bell UH-1 Iroquois page, reversed? Antifesto (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No the PT6-T is the twin-pack i.e. two PT-6 tuboshafts coupled together.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)