Jump to content

Talk:Helicopter/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Good Article

It is almost time to nominate this article to move it forward. I'm concerned that there are too many sections labeled as unreferenced. This may cause the article to be automatically failed for a good article nomination. --Born2flie (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

The Flettner, the Focke -Achgelis and other german developments aren't even mentioned, also none of the german engineers who came up with the first operable helicopters which (after WW2) led into the developement of the MBB Bo-107, one of the best helicopters of it's class. The Bo-107 sisn't mentioned either despite it's innovations! This article is far from being a good one! --89.50.29.245 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  • Tegopoulos/Fitrakis, "Greek Dictionary"/"Helleniko Leksiko" (p.239 Δ΄ έκδοση - 4th edition, 1991), ISBN 960-7598-00-8

I do not know what is required for a source to be reliable, i found the Wikipedia system too complex to understand, so this is the only thing i can provide you with. But the word is surely wrong, i could provide you with a scan of the page that includes the definition if you would like me too, that is the best i can do. Thank you

The reference notation should probably read as:

Why do we have two footnote sections (i.e., notes and footnotes)? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Image req

animation explaining the way of tilting the blades dynamically

a helicopter is awsome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.172.31 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Why is there a block on this article? As per WP:OWN, blocks are only when there is danger from persistent vandalism or other immediate reasons. I state this because this article is not even that good! I mean the person who obviously understands Greek has stated that ἕλιξ is the correct usage not ἕλικ (from a reputable Greek dictionary). The reference that is cited on line doesn't even support the definition 'turning'. Yet editors of this page have not even bothered to change/challenge that information.

Remember, you don't own these articles and that most people make edits in good faith! If people could make changes, the page might actually move forward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.58.15 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I need help

Please, if someone could help me about this part "Emmanuel Dieuaide's steam-powered design featured counter-rotating rotors powered through a hose from a boiler on the ground. Dandrieux's design had counter-rotating rotors and a 7.7-pound (3.5-kilogram) steam engine. It rose more than 40 feet (12 m) and flew for 20 seconds circa 1878."

Something is unclear for me: Who is Dandrieux? When Emmanuel Dieuaide made his design?. Is there any connection between two of them? Thank you very much in advance. --Palapa (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the reference following that part (ref. 10). Most of that text there goes with Enrico Forlanini. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuel consumption

In the text, one particular issue isn't quite mentioned: fuel consumption. For example, the Bell 47 had an engine of 265 HP, whereas ie the Bell H-1 ("Huey"), had an engine of 1400 HP. Also a notable difference was the type of engine, ie straight ICE engine vs turboshaft engine, the latter being more energy consuming. Thus, it could be argued that the Bell 47 was allot more cost-effective, and thus more suitable for the transport of personnel; for cargo/heavy loads, the H-1 was more suitable 91.182.144.189 (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the pistons are enormously more complicated & maintenance intensive, & require more expensive avgas, rather than kerosene, which turbines run on. The higher SFC of the turbine is much overweighed, which is why airlines switched to turbines so readily. Also, the turbines are lighter, so there's more payload per hp. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Being much lighter, turboshefts have a greater power-to-weight ratio than piston engines, which even off-sets the weight of the extra fuel needed. You'll not that while there are several designs in prodction in the size/weight class of the Bell 47 today, there are none of a greater size/weight. This more than likely has to do with the cost of the engines themselves, turboshafts being more expensive than pistons, and probably more expensive to service too, given the nature of turbines and blades, etc. Though more complicated, piston engines are still relatively low-tech engines, and easily serviced. Even so, the Robinson R66 is trying to tackle the low-end market with a turboshaft, aiming to keep acquisition and ownership costs somewhat comparable to the piston helicopters. So no, fuel cost isn't htat big of a consideration, at least not historically. - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I suppose it's a matter of user. As I understand it, the airlines saw tremendous savings in maintenance, due in to greater reliability (fewer moving parts so less chance of failure), so fewer mechanics, in the switch from the recips like the DC-6 & Connie to the 707. Add to that was the cost of fuel. IMO, in helos, the power/weight was a biggie, & why the 204 was such a winner. Good on Robinson for trying an entry-level turbine. :D (If only Jim Bede had succeeded... :( :( ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There's always the MTT Turbine Superbike for ground use, with reconditioned high-time Allison Model 250s! - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
!! But down here, there's speed limits & cop radios. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable wind force?

Could someone please explain more on the safe operating conditions for helicopters. In particular wind force.

  1. I removed the 'Army Aviation Association of America' link because it was not appropriate to the general subject of helicopters and really only applies to military helicopters. I replaced it to that article.
  2. I question the validity of the 'Nederlandse Heli info' link. It seems to be more of a fan page hosted on a free server, rather than an official page. I find this to be contrary to the WP:EL guideline for non-English links. I propose that it be removed.

--Born2flie (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I think some of the others could be pruned per WP:EL as well. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
MilborneOne, which ones do you want to nominate? --Born2flie (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

batteries for helicoptor

which batteries are required for helicotor? what is the requirement form the batterry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.180.212 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hazard - uneven Ground effect ?

I remember a YouTube video showing a helicopter just above the deck of an aircraft carrier moving horizontally off the side and tipping over as it lost Ground effect from beneath the 'front' of the rotor. I am not an expert, but there may be a missing hazard here ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maximum altitude

  • Maximum altitude above sea level is not mentioned. This could possibly be added to the limitations section? 15:39, 19 September 2010 User:98.245.80.232

I have seen it said that 19,000 feet is the maximum. Then it has been said that a helicopter landed on the top of Mount Everest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The same pilot is also said to have landed on the South Col of Everest, at 26,000 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
See wiki.answers.com, which seems to be a full answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In the paragraph entitled "World Records", 11,010 meters is mentioned. The maximum varies with the type of helicopter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Asbót Oszkár

I can't find Asbót Oszkár's contribution to the invention of the helicopter in the article. I would be glad to see him appear in the article, because hungarians consider him one of their important engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.135.22 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

He is mentioned and there is also a separate article on him, look for "In 1928, Hungarian aviation engineer Oszkár Asbóth constructed..." --CliffC (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Pescara and his first flight and conflicting facts??? -- Jack

Folks, This is the first time I have ever come across this. On article stating an inventors helicopter could not lift over 3/4s its weight and the UK is financing further development and the original citations saying otherwise. So I reverted my own edits of all things!!! This is the Popular Science reference I am referring to. And understand I am not challenging any of the edits. Because I don't know which facts are correct. "New Helicopter Rises in Vertical Flight." Popular Science, November 1930, p. 70. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The name of R. Pescara is: Raoul Pateras-Pescara Castelluccio (1890 - 1966) We must return to the definition of a helicopter to the devices 1 and 2 of M. Oehmichen are not helicopters. No. 2 falls into the category: the quadrotor rotorcraft. The Km of runs of 4 May 1924 does not comply with the contest rules (Aérophile March and April 1923) record that is not recorded by the FAI www.helicoptere-pescara.com and www.pateras-pescara.net The Marquis Pateras-Pescara is a pioneer of Aeronautics from 1911 to 1936 (UK patent 515,457)Pateras-Pescara (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop back and forth edits and discuss

So someone has been adding a lot of terms a helicopter is called. I do not agree with that edit at all, because all the words are so uncommon to me. I have heard people refer to helicopters as choppers and copters, but never once have I heard anyone say helo, (heli is more common), whirlybird (sounds more like a jet to me) and eggbeater. (since when are helicopters relevant to eggs?)

Seriously, those terms are just so rare that I don't think they're relevant. But I'm not gonna join the revert war, instead I'm gonna ask why? Why do you guys feel the need of mentioning those terms? BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Whirlybird - there was an US black and white TV series called Whirlybirds (111 episides in the late 50s), the eggbeater reference is to a Mixer (cooking), Helo is US Navy slang I think. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, but let me tell you something. Just because there are some noteworthy helicopters of that name doesn't mean it's ok to put that as a nickname in the first header of the article.
You might as well add Obama as the perfect definition as president of the united states, see how that's flawed?
I'm not saying that you're defending the edit, I'm saying that the people who are need to realize a few big names don't mean it's appropriate to make it a definition of a word. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
They are legitimate definitions: with the exception of "helo", the terms in question are all found in standard, abridged dictionaries as informal terms for "helicopter" and certainly deserve mention in the article. I do not think any of them (including "chopper") belong in the first sentence of the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
If "chopper" is to be added as an informal term, the others should be, also. They're sufficiently common to have been encountered, & there are a lot of less-common nicknames for things in the lead of other articles. (I've never actually seen "Chicago piano" used in ref the Tommy gun, myself, but it's in the lead.) As for "helo", it's apparently fairly often used by U.S. military. The others aren't current, but "eggbeater" was, as I understand it, in ref to intermeshing rotors; it was around in the '40s & '50s. So was "whirlybird". Have they fallen out of common use? Yes. So has "gat". Big deal. We're back to the Tommy gun example. Do we delete if it's not common now? Or do we cover the subject completely? I say leave it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I can find all three of them in use in the pages of Flight; roughly chopper, whirlybird, egg-beater in order of decreasing use.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I do think that the less common and less current ones don't need to be in the first sentence, but if the choice is to put them all in there or leave them all out entirely, I guess I'd favor the former. It might be sort of like putting "jalopy" and "flivver" in the Automobile lede, though. Btw, "eggbeater" was in very common use long after the 1950s, and afaik it did refer specifically to intermeshing (or at least tandem) rotor helicopters (although, now that I think of it, the possibilities for innovative anti-torque devices in kitchen tools are sort of intriguing). Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The WP:Lead is a summary of the article as an introduction. If it isn't covered in the article after the first section, then it doesn't need to be included in the lead section. We can break the rule, but it really doesn't make any sense to do so in the case of slang, since the article is perfectly capable of being understood without them. Arguably, helicopters are not "commonly" known by another name, but whether they are referred to as helis, helos, choppers, copters, whirlybirds, the case that they are popularly or commonly identified as one or the other, or all of the above, should be sourced appropriately by a recognized authority, rather than the apparent original research. Merriam-Webster.com refers to the following as synonyms: chopper, copter, eggbeater, helo, whirlybird;[1] which implies that they are in use, but does not suggest which is more common than any other. If it is to be covered in the main body of the article, perhaps it should be under an etymology section, and summarized in the lede. --Born2flie (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I agree with some of what you say. Sourcing things is generally an excellent idea, although in the case of easily verifiable synonyms it seems a bit overly cautious. If we could find a source that discusses the relative frequency of use for helicopter synonyms, that would be really great, but I won't be holding my breath. In any event, I don't believe we'd be breaking any "rule"—bending a highly flexible guideline, at most, and perhaps not even that. MOS says:

Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. (my emphasis)

Maybe synonyms are significant, maybe not; I'd venture to say they're not very significant here. Although I don't think an etymology section is strictly needed to justify the inclusion of synonyms in the lede, it might well be the best solution. I'm a bit confused about your reference to WP:NOR, btw. Do you see an original research problem here? Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There are too many variant names to be covered in the Lead sentence, as none seem to be significantly more common than the others. I'd add them to the Lead's second paragragh with the etymology info. I don't think we need a separate section on etymology as it is written at this point. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
When there is a dispute, sourcing is an obvious solution to me. It beats the Google argument about search results. The more reputable the source, the better the argument for inclusion. Yes, I do see original research if one is going to assert that one or more synonyms are legitimate and then proceed to argue/revert without a source to include all, all but one, or none. Case in point: you argued against helo, but the first source I found included it. My statement about the rules wasn't about a rule. It was an allusion to, "Ignore all the rules," which seems to be the catchall for whatever anyone wants to do, whether it makes sense or not. Although, why they should choose that statement when there literally are no rules is beyond me. Still, this is why reverting is actually a more profitable method of enforcing group-think than discussion. The group only needs to wait until the dissenters violate 3RR and then report the perpetrator to the admins. Or is 3RR no longer valid? I take such long breaks from here, I may be out of touch on that rule.
The primary goal of Wikipedia is to build articles. Now, While the MOS can say whatever it likes, the supposedly ultimate goal of the game of Wikipedia is to advance as many articles as possible to FA-Status. That shifts all the power to the FA guidelines, or more accurately, what can be passed through the FA-Review is what matters. So, while the MOS and policies like WP:IAR are supposed to move the community forward, they actually result in revert wars and devolutions of editing into these types of discussions. Wikipedia is a free site that anyone can edit, run by the largest unpaid bureaucracy in the world. --Born2flie (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultrlight helicopters

Appearantly, ultralight helicopters also exist and seem to be made by amateurs. See http://www.vortechonline.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=V1&Product_Code=HM1002 and http://www.vortechonline.com/g1/ I don't think we allready have a page discussing these, so perhaps we should make Ultralight helicopter. In addition, perhaps we can change the image of the helicopter used now in the main helicopter article to something like a G1 or A/W 95. I'm also wondering what type that frame helicopter is at the front of the book (The Helicopter Experimenter's Handbook )and which frame helicopters are shown in Dan Donley's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T68Y-Q7nanA , at 2:31 playing time)

91.182.204.99 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is scope for a separate article at Ultralight helicopter, but that should have negligible effect on this article. Changing the masthead image for helicopter to an ultralight helicopter is not only a bad idea, it's such a bad idea that I could recognise immediately who had posted it. DO NOT DO THIS. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the editors of this article. It was apparently used as material for the first chapter in the FAA's new Rotorcraft Handbook, with no acknowledgment of where the information came from. Perhaps because they used an older version of the article? 192.100.69.170 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll have to find that to check. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Denny-Mumford Helicopter

The development of this helicopter in Dumbarton in the West of Scotland from 1908 to the final version with floats in 1914 is well documented, with photographs, so I cannot fathom why it does not feature in this article.Chicmac (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gender bias in the section on Da Vinci

A sentence in question is as follows: "As scientific knowledge increased and became more accepted, men continued to pursue the idea of vertical flight". I'm not great with English but this is an easily fixed example of gender bias. Something as simple as "man", "people", or "humans" could fix the problem but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate grammatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.101.66 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How about none of them? This isn't Politically Correct Encyclopeida, after all. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Where the name "helicopter" came from

Honestly, the story that the name "helicopter" came from a french word in 1861 sounds very convincing, but doesn't agree with a visit I made to the NASA Space Museum in Washington DC in the late 60's.

My memory is vague and I could be wrong.

By a cut-away of a helicopter on exhibit there, a placard said that there were two aircraft companies, Helio and Cooper that merged into Helio-Cooper. Following a sensational rescue a newspaper reporter wrote a misquote or typo error and the name "helicopter" stuck.

Again that's what I always believed, but please correct me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.2.9 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

New Speed Record?

Below is an article of the Sikorsky X2 breaking the helicopter speed record. It ultimately reached it's goal of 250 KTAS (299 MPH) before the program ended to pursue the technology in practical applications.

Now, this was an experimental helicopter, so i'm not sure if you are only counting production helicopters or not. It is also a coaxial, compound rotor system but it is still a true helicopter. Also, i'm not sure if there were "world record officials" there to witness the flight or even if such a thing is required to qualify. but there are TONS of articles out there on this helicopter. thoughts?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/sikorsky-x2-breaks-helicopter-speed-record/

64.134.232.75 (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bell 533 was also an experimental helicopter. It also set a speed record. Whether the aircraft must be production is a good question, and do we distinguish between prototypes and experimental. The Mil V-12 did not go into production. Nevertheless it appears the intent is to list production or at least production-like rotorcraft. We might want to get input from other editors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The X2 is a compound helicopter due to its pusher prop. If it is listed the corresponding FAI category needs to be noted. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The inventor of helicopter

Inventor of helicopter wasnt young american, it was Austro-Hungarian officer Ivan Blaž Lupis Vukić(Croatian) he also invented torpedo's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.153.22 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, provide a sourse. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames - Proposing the removal of "Chopper" and adding "Copter"

Just about every Helicopter Pilot, Co-Pilot, Flight Mech. and/or other Crew-person will adamantly correct most any & all individuals (typically conditioned by Rank) if/when one refers to a Helicopter specifically as a "Chopper" versus "Helo" or "Copter".

It is out of respect for "Our Brothers & Sisters in Arms" thus obligating me to point this out - Just striving for perfection.

Note Ref[1] (below) refers to this Wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_HH-65_Dolphin (I am having a difficult time getting the HTML code properly debugged and working)

AdManTheLabRat (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)AdManTheLabRat SOURCE: A well respected "Family Member" is a "Flight Mechanic" (Flight Mech.) on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_HH-65_Dolphin

What are you talking about? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Chopper" is informal, but most nicknames are informal. This one is commonly used, so it should stay. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Heli-Expo

Hi, Heli-Expo is the largest helicopter exhibition in the world and should be referenced here. At least in the "See also"-Links. As I am a newbie I can't do that, so if anyone would be so kind...? GWatia (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many airshows and aviation expos every year. I don't think should Heli-Expo should be listed in the article and not others. Now if there's an image taken at the expo, it could be linked there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Handbook reference update

Bibliography

Position:

  • Rotorcraft Flying Handbook: FAA Manual H-8083-21.. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration (Flight Standards Division), U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2001. ISBN 1-56027-404-2.

should be modified to:

  • Helicopter Flying Handbook: FAA Manual H-8083-21a.. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration (Flight Standards Division), U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2012.

(http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/media/faa-h-8083-21A.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.220.73 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no requirement that references must be updated. However, if the text cited with the old version is covered by the new version, then there's no issue with updating the reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "location" in the table "World records"

When you say "Location" in the table "World records", you should mention the actual place of the particular world record (or the start and end points in case of distance records) and not the nationality of the pilot or the helicopter firm. Therefore it is nonsense to write France instead of Mount Everest (Nepal) in the column "location". The actual locations of each world record is given in your references of the Record Files of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Sincerely --MBelzer (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

In addition to what I wrote here: [2] you may notice that he is mostly called "Leonardo" in the locked article about him and also in the Italian one.79.102.161.121 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

First helicopter?

I found the text:

In 1917, the engineers of the company designed a radical motorized flying machine (named "P.K.Z.") to replace the highly flammable hydrogen-filled balloons then being used to observe enemy positions. That early helicopter flew to a height of over 50 m. It was supported by 120 hp engines and two massive wooden propellers turning in opposite directions. It was intended to lift a pilot, observer, machine gun and fuel for an hour's flight. Because it left the ground, some consider it as the first helicopter

at Ganz Works article. The given source is http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?ROD-008 But it does not appear at Helicopter#History

What do you think about this information? Is this true or false? Should it present on wikipedia? 79.117.188.87 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Records?

The world record for fastest helicopter is listed for the Westland Lynx. However, the Sikorsky X2 is 50 mph faster than it (299 mph- 249 mph) making me think that this record, ad maybe others in its section, are outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinzhang27 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The table lists current records. The X2 is a compound helicopter and never received an official record from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). There's more explanation at Talk:Westland Lynx and the talk page archives there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok this is getting ridiculous.

This. Again and again. On basic grammar and etymology stuff.
So what do we have instead of my edited content??
Probably an inaccurate or at least a less relevant lemma/definition (LSJ 1 instead of 2), use of raw&direct link refererence format/syntax instead of handy templates, arguably at least an inadequate or less than perfect etymology, the omission of a relevant and arguably important linguistic phaenomenon (misanalysis etc. of a borrowed word) and in parallel accusation of OR and Synthesis (wtf!?!?), etc..
On the last issue:
I'm obviously paraphrasing the source

The two Greek words that are the origin of helicopter may be particularly hard for English speakers to spot. Helicopter was borrowed from the French word hélicoptère, a word constructed from Greek heliko- and pteron, "wing." Heliko-, the combining form of helix, "spiral," has given us helico-, which can be joined with other words and word forms to create new words. The consonant cluster pt in pteron begins many Greek words but relatively few English words. English speakers unfamiliar with Greek are thus not likely to recognize the word's elements as helico-pter; many analyze the word into the elements heli-copter, as is shown by the clipped form copter

using this

For various reasons, the word is often erroneously analysed by English speakers into heli- and copter; see "helicopter". The Free Dictionary.

PS. Let me guess what's the possible objection, let's see whether we could talk constructively (though I must emphasise that the accusations and the edit-reversions are, to say the least, hardly justified; I would certainly welcome something improving my edits, I don't accept nor welcome the accusations etc.):
Bilcat do you want, for example, to add "or "erroneously"" next to "erroneously" or to use italics i.e. "erroneously"?? Would you prefer it? Would you object to that?

Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a reply dear Bilcat; or is it that do you not have enough time available for replying/discussing when it seems that you do have plenty of time (and faster than light reaction time) for a 3RR and to accuse me of ... ?? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No reply, so this and this. Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the list of nicknames for helicopter included "huey", which is a reference to a specific line of helicopters, so I added a link to the Bell Huey article. This was reverted, with the claim "list is for nicknames for helicopters in general, not nicknames for specific helicopter models". If that is indeed the case, then shouldn't "Huey" be deleted from that list altogether? And, if it is retained, should it be both linked to the article and be capitalized? SlowJog (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I should have removed the Huey mention for the reason stated. I just did that. Thanks for catching this. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Details of first combat use of helicopter

Fnlayson (Revert uncited and largely unneeded details)? How do you figure?

There's a direct link to the wikipedia entry that verifies the details...and how are details of the first combat use of the helicopter "unneeded"? Seem like a fairly important acknowledgement to me. JohnDWashington (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not provide any sources for the details you added and the unit specifics were unneeded, imo. The details of the early helicopter use for rescuing would be more appropriate at combat search and rescue. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Helicopter. 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) 09:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence structure -- fix recommended

The text currently reads:

"In July 1901, Hermann Ganswindt demonstrated maiden flight of his helicopter took place in Berlin-Schöneberg, which probably was the first motor-driven flight carrying humans."

I suggest revising it for clarity:

"In July 1901, Hermann Ganswindt demonstrated the maiden flight of his helicopter in Berlin-Schöneberg. This was probably the first motor-driven flight carrying a human."

I'd make these minor revisions for clarity myself, but the article is protected.

This sentence also seems to contradict information provided in a later section in the article:

"For this reason, the flights of the Gyroplane No. 1 are considered to be the first manned flight of a helicopter, but not a free or untethered flight."

Cheers, --208.87.233.201 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helicopter. 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) 16:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Helicopter. 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) 18:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Smallest? Lightest?

To be listed in chapter World records.

Lowest reversed flight?

--Helium4 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

Change "US Police Helicopter" to "LAPD Helicopter" on first image, add link to LAPD page Freeroamers (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, but don't we love the American Police Department? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The modern helicopter

As I have understood the history of helicopters, pioneers tried for many years to solve the counter rotation problem by using multiple main rotors either stacked vertically or side by side.

Nearly all modern helicopters, and what most people would readily identify as a helicopter, are based on a design with a smaller tail fan at right angles to the main rotor. This design, pioneered by Sikorsky, was very successful and saw helicopters going from limited niche use to mainstream methods of transport.

This article seems to ignore this massive change. Indeed, the paragraph called the 'The birth of an industry' starts by talking about the last of the powered autogyro derivatives and ambles on to Sikorsky's helicopters without even mentioning the completely radical change in the basic architecture of the aircraft.

I would suggest the article is split between early helicopters and modern helicopters, with the split being at the introduction of the tail rotor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.115.69 (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Heaviest take-off? Biggest payload?

? Boscaswell talk 09:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Snachala nado sprashivaty jivuщих v dome !

Вы бы ещё старую ванну к двери прикрутили ..

А квартплата стала больше. И чо ?

В подъезде есть 2 доски. Рядом с дверью на стене - тоже. Теперь на двери. Уже вторая ..

Когда вас на балконе с ведром ждать ? Для денег конешно. Или с мешком ?

Не вас "Скорые" весь день возили ??

P.S. Rokfellerы Morgannые 176.59.213.145 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in the history session

Ján Bahýľ, a Slovak inventor, adapted the internal combustion engine to power his helicopter model that reached a height of 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) in 1901. On 5 May 1905, his helicopter reached 4 meters (13 feet) in altitude and flew for over 1,500 meters (4,900 feet).[21]

The above-mentioned name "Ján Bahýľ" is unknown and historically incorrect, created by the Slovak chauvinism. His name was in the register records Johann Bahily, in the literature also Bahily János. See direct reference to Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/?jan-bahyl-zivotopis He preferred to use Bahily János and he called himself Hungarian not Slovak, as he was born and raised and also died in Hungary. Slovakia was not even existing in his lifetime. Slovakia as a country was created first time in history only in 1939. His patent was also registered by himself under the name Bahily János in 1906. See the original patent under patent number 34770 in the Hungarian patent registry. Researchable under http://epub.hpo.hu/e-nyilvantartas/?lang=HU or simple verifiable also in Google under images with the search criteria: "Bahily János". The patent is shown on multiple sources with his original name.

Please correct this historical mistake in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiuzai (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 November 2019 (CT)

"Bellypopper" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bellypopper. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Bellypopper until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

section 5.3 Vibration, change "Adjustment is difficult in part because measurement of the vibration is hard, usually requiring sophisticated accelerometers mounted throughout the airframe and gearboxes. The most common blade vibration adjustment measurement system is to use a stroboscopic flash lamp, and observe painted markings or coloured reflectors on the underside of the rotor blades. The traditional low-tech system is to mount coloured chalk on the rotor tips, and see how they mark a linen sheet." to "Adjustment is difficult in part because measurement of the vibration is hard, usually requiring sophisticated accelerometers mounted throughout the airframe and gearboxes. The most common blade vibration adjustment measurement system is to use a stroboscopic flash lamp, and observe painted markings or coloured reflectors on the underside of the rotor blades. The traditional low-tech system is to mount coloured chalk on the rotor tips, and see how they mark a linen sheet. Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_usage_monitoring_systems), or HUMS, provide vibration monitoring and rotor track and balance solutions to limit vibration." This adds important information and a link to this section.

Reference - https://www.rotor.org/resource?ArtMID=493&ArticleID=7434 Andrewheli (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewheli:  Done KRtau16 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the Autogyro?

There is no mention of the Autogyro in the lead. The autogyro invented by Juan de la Cierva in 1923 is the predecessor of the modern helicopter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.127.58 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The only mention of any history in the lead is the first helicopter in 1907, while autogyro came a couple of decades later. While de la Cierva's work was important in the evolution of the helicopter, other pioneers such as Sikorsky aren't mentioned either. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sikorsky is Ukrainian not Russian

He was born in Kyiv during Russian occupation, that doesn't mean he is russian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.162.125 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Igor Sikorsky for discussions ad nauseum on why Russian is used. BilCat (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
When Sikorsky lived there it was part of the Russian Empire and not separate nation. Per MOS:ETHNICITY nationality can be listed in the Lead, but "Ethnicity ... should generally not be ..." -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Sykorskyi was not russian, he was ukrainian 188.163.108.123 (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Birth of an industry in wrong place?

The section 'Birth of an industry' appears to start with the twilight of the gyrocopter derived designs.

Sikorsky's novel single rotor design was the first helicopter as we know them today, and the first to be mass produced. It would seem to be the appropriate point for the start of the new section. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Transmission and electric drives and quadcopters?

The Transmission section identifies mechanical gearboxes as a major source of problems. It also notes that electric-magnetic transmission is more reliable in this respect.

But perhaps there should be a clearer explanation of how and why electric 'helicopters' are typically quadcopters...or more to the point why the advantages of multiple rotors have not been popular on mechanical transmission designs.

Over the last few years several people have asked me why conventional helicopters don't use quadcopter layouts like drones...and visa-versa. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sikorsky was born in Ukraine!

Dear author of the article. You dare to write about the history of the invention of helicopters devaluing the name of their inventors. You wrote the story of Sikorsky guided by Russian imperialism. it is the same as if Great Britain still claimed India or the USA, devaluing the peoples who live there. Sikorsky was born in Ukraine in 1889. Even if you dared to say that Ukraine was the USSR (and this would be a gross violation of international law and evidence that you don't understand the meaning of the word "union"), the USSR still began to exist in 1922. I ask you to immediately correct the information in article. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.45.172 (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

Please include include the following additions in the History, "early development" section.


Spanish civil engineer and pilot Juan de la Cierva-Codorníu invented the autogiro or girocóptero (autogyro) in the early 1920s, becoming the first practical rotorcraft. On July 1, 1920, de la Cierva applied for his first patent, no. ES 74 322, at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office presented as “New Aviation Machine” (*).

The first C1 model was built in Pablo Díaz's workshop in Getafe (Madrid, Spain) and tested for the first time in October 1920 by the pilot Captain Felipe Gómez-Acebo. However, the test was not completely satisfactory since, although the rotors entered autorotation, one of them did so at a lower speed (*). In 1921 de la Cierva successfully flew a reduced model at the Buen Retiro park in Madrid in the presence of engineer and President of the Spanish Republic Emilio Herrera (*Wikipedia*). In that same year another test flight of the new C-3 model took place and in 1922 the C-2 model was tested. Both C-2 and C-3 presented stability problems, contrary to the model tested at the Buen Retiro Park.

Finally, de la Cierva found the problem in the stiffness of the blades, which he resolved by including a horizontal joint attached to each of the blades in the C-4 model, which made a successful test flight by the experienced pilot Alejandro Spencer on January 10, 1923, being able to take off, fly and land vertically. On the following January 31, the C-4 circled about four kilometers at more than 25 meters high.

In 1934, in a conference during his last stay in Madrid at the Escuela Superior Aerotécnica, Madrid, de la Cierva proposed the study of the solutions of the differential equation that arises when studying the possible oscillations of the autogyro blades, characterized by the variation of the deviation angle (height or depression) (***). Professor Puig-Adam, in collaboration with his students and using Runge's numerical methods and Meissner's graphs, solved the equation, as described in his book "Theoretical and practical course of differential equations applied to physics and technology", confirming what de la Cierva had intuitively predicted (****)

(*) Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.oepm.es/export/sites/oepm/comun/documentos_relacionados/Publicaciones/monografias/juan_de_la_cierva_esp.pdf (**) "Juan de la Cierva Codorníu, inventor del autogiro (1895-1936)", Dr. Ricardo de la Cierva y de Hoces, professor of World Contemporary History, University of Alcalá de Henares, Spain, https://digital.march.es/fedora/objects/fjm-pub:462/datastreams/OBJ/content (***) Sobre la estabilidad del movimiento de las palas del autogiro, Khatarsis Magazine, Antonio Senyé-Pocino, 2008, https://revistaliterariakatharsis.org/DE_LA_CIERVA.pdf (****) Curso Teórico Práctico de ecuaciones diferenciales aplicado a la Física y Técnica, two volumes, Pedro Puig-Adam, 1958, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Madrid.


There are a lot of pictures to include: https://www.vuelalo.es/historia-del-autogiro PolasBear (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Denny Mumford Helicopter

First took to the air in 1912. Should be included IMHO. See for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishmaritimemuseum/4967275889/ 2A00:23C6:F983:2C01:9084:90A6:89CC:E852 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Trouve electric helicopter

The Trouve helicopter is discussed in detail in Octave Chanute's Progress in Flying Machines. It was tested by mounting on a seesaw-like pivot. It rose, but the power was supplied to the motor through the conductive pivot. It did not carry its power source with it. Roquefortcheesecake (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

NASA Mars helicopter

This paragraph needs updating to reflect the fact that the NASA Mars helicopter (Ingenuity) has successfully flown many missions on Mars. Pawprintoz (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Torque

The article states "Most helicopters have a single main rotor, but torque created by its aerodynamic drag must be countered by an opposed torque."

This is factually incorrect. The torque is not created by aerodynamic drag, it's the result of an equal and opposite reaction force (Newton's Second Law). It happens in a vacuum. Spacecraft have reaction wheels for attitude control that work on this principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.76.143 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I've thought about this some more. There are at least two main effects here. There is conservation of angular momentum purely in the rotation of the blades and the body of the helicopter plus there is the equal and opposite reaction to the continued "pushing" of the blades against the air.
As the angular speed of the rotors changes (e.g. from rest to spinning) their angular momentum changes and the tail rotor has to exert an equal and opposite thrust to compensate.
When the helicopter is in flight, as the article correctly states, there is aerodynamic drag on the blades (as with aeroplane wings) which the engine must push against. Since the blades rotate, this manifests as a torque, for which the tail rotor must compensate. 87.115.6.239 (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for heli- and -copter

The source is not available online and is in French.

And so I got curious: what are the reasons why the word isn't analysed helic- and -pter?

I'm assuming the source goes into some detail. Or, if you have another source discussing heli- and -copter?

CapnZapp (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably because that is how it's pronounced in English. We say "heli-copter", not "helic-opter", which is difficult for most native English speakers to say. BilCat (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It appears you believe you have adequately answered the issue, but you did so by posting an unsourced speculation here on the talk page while removing context for the reader on the actual article page. If you are unsure what my issue is, feel free to ask. Otherwise I will assume you understand full well what made me start this talk section, User:BilCat, and I invite you to actually fix it on the article page. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Look it up in an English dictionary, and see how the syllables are divided. But to be honest, your questions here are straying into WP:FORUM territory, and are really beyond the scope of a generalist encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable source that discusses why "helicopter" is not analyzed as "helic-opter", then you might be able to add it to the article, if it can be shown to relevant to the topic. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
You keep assuming I am asking for my sake. Please stop doing so. I am asking in order to highlight there is an opportunity to improve the page. Please stop explaining and answering to me here on talk - instead consider answering by improving our article. That's the end goal here. So please assume your fellow editors understand the purpose of this talk page rather than assuming they confuse it for WP:FORUM. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Our sentence is:

For various reasons,[specify] the word is often erroneously, from an etymological point of view, analysed by English speakers into heli- and copter,

which makes the following explicit and implicit claims:

  1. the word is analysed by English speakers into heli- and -copter
  2. presumably instead of helik- and -pter
  3. that this is done for "various" reasons
  4. and finally that this is etymologically erroneous

Now then, does anyone have access to our source (Cottez 1980) that can contribute? Our only other source, Free Dictionary, is of questionable quality and does not go into sufficient detail. Otherwise the entire sentence becomes dodgy. We should not make the third claim without going into any details of what those reasons are, it makes the entire sentence very vague. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Next time, lead with that. BilCat (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
No, the problem here isn't what I led with. The problem here was your preconceived notions. The fix here is easy: change your ways and assume basic competence, please. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

Dima Dov (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky ukrainian-born engineer, not russian-born.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. If I understand correctly, when he was born, Kiev was part of Russia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helicopter/Archive_3&oldid=1258162581"