Talk:LTV XC-142

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Move

I was surprised to see this page under the title Chance-Vought/LTV XC-142A. The name Chance-Vought has not been used by Vought AIrcfraft concerns since the mid-1930s, so its use here is definitely anachronistic; a better title would have been Vought/LTV XC-142A. However, Ling purchased Temco in 1960, and Vought in 1961, forming Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) at that time. While Vought may have actually begun development of the XC-142 project before the merger, it was built and tested by LTV. I have always seen this project listed as the LTV XC-142.

I would have preferred to list the page as simply LTV XC-142, but that page was occupied by a redirect page. To move it there, the page would have to be deleted by an administrator first. As XC-142A was the only variant of the XC-142 produced, the current title should be sufficient, though I would support moving it to LTV XC-142 through the merge request process, if others are interested in doing so.

I have taken care to correct as many redirects as possible to this name, including many that went to various other redirect pages for the old title. If someone feels they must move this page somewhere else, without achieving a consensus first, I will not feel obligated to help clean up the redirects again.

Thanks. - BillCJ 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tail Rotors"?

This sentence: One crash occurred as a result of a failure of the driveshaft to the tail rotor, causing three fatalities. - this vehicle doesn't have 'tail rotors' - so how could this be?

Sincerely

PointLookoutResident 6:49, 22 July 2019

"For pitch control the aircraft featured a separate tail rotor, oriented horizontally to lift the tail..." It isn't very visible on the photos, but there was some sort of small horizontal rotor at the back end of the aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prop control

it used "differential clutching" of the props for roll control? Not just the more usual collective control of the prop pitch? Just seems weird. Clutching involves power loss and usually heat generation, and they already have the equipment built in for collective pitch adjustment (I assume). It doesn't actually say how collective pitch for climb was controlled, but I assume it had a typical collective that worked on all four rotors to climb or descend. It would complicate the mechanism to allow for differential collective on each side, but they made it work in the CH-47, which can change both rotors for climb or just one for pitch. Adding clutches to the prop drives just seems like a strange approach to take. Especially if Vertol was involved, they didn't have to work around any patents or anything. Idumea47b (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]