Talk:Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge Harbin Z-9G and Z-9

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 articles were merged together but not to this article at this time. --Born2flie 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Both articles refer to the aircraft as copies of the Dauphin, either license-built or reverse-engineered and both articles are stubs that would fit the Variants section. --Born2flie 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. For reasons above. However, if they are not merged here, they should at least be merged together. - BillCJ 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support merging the two articles together. Oppose merging Z-9. Given that the Z-9 is a licenced produced copy rather than just a local designation, and that the Chinese have made substantial modifications and their own variants, I think Z-9 can stand as a seperate article. Compare, for example Westland Whirlwind (helicopter) as a seperate article from Sikorsky H-19, and Type 56 assault rifle as a seperate article from AK-47. FiggyBee 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The recommendation is to merge both Z-9 articles to this article. Both are stub-class articles, and the Z-9 describes it being a stop gap until the Chinese complete their WZ-10 helicopter. I'm just not sure if you realized that was the discussion. --Born2flie 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I realise that was what you were suggesting. I was simply agreeing with BillCJ's suggestion that the two extant articles on the Z-9 should be merged together, whilst disagreeing that they should be merged into this one. Just because an article is a stub is no reason to merge it into another article, and I think the Z-9 is distinct enough from the Dauphin to warrant its own article. Additionally, take a look at the pages that link to Z-9 - they are specifically Chinese defence topics and it is helpful to link them to a page specifically about the Chinese version of the helicopter.FiggyBee 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Harbin Z-9G to Z-9, so that removes the question of merging the two articles. FiggyBee 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If we don't merge the Z-9 with this one, we need to rename it the Harbin Z-9 to conform with WP:AIR's naming conventions.

Agreed, and done. FiggyBee 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I don't think we're going to get any more votes, so I am supporting not merging the Z-9 with the Dauphin. Hopefully the article will be expanded in the near future, or merger is likely to be proposed again. - BillCJ 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about merging it forever. In fact, merging it may serve as the impetus for someone to improve it enough to split it back out as its own article. --Born2flie 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at fleshing out the Z-9 article a little... it's not much, but it's a start. What do you think? FiggyBee 02:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag from this article for now. I'll leave the one on Harbin Z-9 for a while longer. FiggyBee 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a concensus established one way or another for the merge. I understand that the Z-9 has had modifications, but they mostly consist of "strap-on" modifications built onto the airframe and not true modifications to make it a totally different airframe. Essentially, they remain license-built Dauphins with locally produced modifications. If I install a different avionics suite than the manufacturer offers, I don't change the nature of the aircraft, even though I may have to do rewiring or bolting on other pieces of equipment to make it work. Z-9=Chinese-built Dauphin, nothing more. --Born2flie 03:35, 14 March 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.

Retired Dauphin in Necmettin Erbakan University

Turkish Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Forestry) used this helicopter from 1991 to 2016 (can be added to Former operators) and then donated it to NEU (Necmettin Erbakan Universitesi) in Konya. The helicopter is in display there, and this information can be added to Aircraft on display section.

References

MSP Picture

I have a great digital photo I took about a year ago of Maryland State Police "Trooper 1" landing in a field. I'm assuming to medivac an injury as it was right next to a concrete plant and workers and firemen were milling around near edge of the field. Would the community be interrested in another picture or is there too many already? If so, how do I upload? Thanks GarrettJL 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested merger

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 Result - No concensus. - BillCJ (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Aérospatiale Dauphin → Eurocopter Dauphin

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Really not enough content to warrant a separate page, esp as less than 50 SA 360s were sold. I would support separating the EC 155 from the older models, as there have been substantial changes to the airframe, but this is not really necessary at this time. - BillCJ 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - So far I've counted five different articles, between civil and military , Chinese and US variants about this chopper. That is clearly too many, as these variants are all similar, and with not enough material to go around. Also the choice of titles is misleading: it's not a question of different manufacturers, but of different models: Dauphin and Dauphin 2. Raoulduke47 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Dauphin "1" was long out of production by the time Eurocopter came about, and AFAIK, Eurocopter never marketed the Dauphin 2 under its original name - simply as the "Dauphin". BTW, I would support merging the various Dauphin 2 articles together. --Rlandmann 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Can we please blend a stub into the larger more detailed article? --Born2flie 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose - I've only just been made aware of this proposal. Please give me until 28 April to elevate the Aérospatiale Dauphin article above stub class. --Rlandmann 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (and re-write it, since I've just discovered that it was a copyvio in the first place).

• Given limited production and usage of the single-engine variants, I'm really not sure how much it can be improved, but I am willing at least to give you a chance to do so. Free or otherwise-usable images would be a great improvement. I can help with adding infoboxes and other sections too, if we decide to keep the article here. - BillCJ 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK - there's my first go. --Rlandmann 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

What's the difference between a Dauphin 1 and a Dauphin 2? Eurocopter and Aérospatiale? --Gbleem 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• In 1972, Aérospatiale built the Dauphin, a single-engine helicopter. Three years later, they built a twin-engine variant of this, called with Dauphin 2. In 1992, Aérospatiale's helicopter division was merged into Eurocopter, and since the original Dauphin was no longer being built, Eurocopter marketed the Dauphin 2 simply as the Dauphin.

Aérospatiale Dauphin - single-engine helicopter

Aérospatiale Dauphin 2 - twin-engine development of above

Eurocopter Dauphin - rebranded Dauphin 2

Rlandmann 00:39, 28 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.