Talk:Schweizer S300/Archive 1

Archive 1

Missing non-affiliated references

Can somebody please give more references, preferrably not company-related? E.g., something to substantiate the "very cost-effective" claim, which is probably true enough, but currently sounds just a rephrasing of the sales pitch at [[1]].

Cite your sources, folks... --BACbKA 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Design origin

The design of the 300C originated with Hughes Tool Company, not Hughes Aircraft. The former line of Hughes helicopters, including the 500-series, all have this lineage. It was originally marketed as the Hughes 300, even though its official designation was the Hughes Model 269. After Hughes Tool sold the design and type certificate to Schweizer, for a while it was known as the Schweizer-Hughes 300. After World War II, Hughes Aircraft was primarily involved in building space satellites, not aircraft, making it easy to make this mis-association. --Quicksilver^{T @} 16:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight: The company began in 1947 as a unit of Hughes Aircraft, then was part of the Hughes Tool Company after 1955. In 1972, Hughes sold the tool division of Hughes Tool Company, and reconsolidated his remaining holdings as the Summa Corporation, which included Hughes' property and other businesses. Hughes Tool's Aircraft Division became the Hughes Helicopter Division, Summa Corp, and was finally reformed as Hughes Helicopters, Inc in 1981. The company also licensed Schweizer Aircraft to produce the Model 300C. The company was sold by Summa to McDonnell-Douglas in 1984. In 1986, McDonnell Douglas sold all the rights to the Model 300C to Schweizer Aircraft.

So, from 1947 to 1955, Hughes Aircraft did have the Helicopter Division. And since the Model 269 first flew in 1956, it's not unreasonalbe to assume its design may have been started under Hughes AAircraft. - BillCJ 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hughes 300 article

I have recently created the Hughes 300 article. This article primarily covers the Schweizer 300C variant, with no coverage of the Hughes 300 other than a mention in the Introduction. Given that most links for the Hughes 300 or TH-55 redirected here, I felt it was time to expand the article.

However, the title of the article did not include the scope of the other variants. One option was to rename the article to reflect its expansion, such as Hughes/Schweizer 300. Some might prefer Schweizer/Hughes 300, but that does not reflect the fact that Hughes designed the Helicopter, and produced it for nearly 30 years before licensing/selling the design to Schweizer.

Rather than causing a disruption trying to rename this article first before expanding it, or expanding it as is, I made the decision to strike out on my own, and see what kind of an article I could put together on the Hughes variants alone. As I believe both article will remain fairly small, I am not opposed to merging them, provided we can find a simple, acceptable name first. - BillCJ 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Schweizer 330/333

As the Schweizer 330 and 333 are based on the 300C's dynamic systems, and as there are no pictures of them already posted on Wiki that I could find, I have added them here. I hope to be adding text on each variant in the next week. At some point in the future, if there is enough content, including pictures, to warrant a separate article on the 330/333, I will support splitting it off. - BillCJ 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the text on the 330/333. I have specs for the 333 that I can add as well, and will as soon as I've updated the 300C's specs template. If we can get a few 330/333 pics, I'd support giving it its own article at that point. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hughes/Schweizer 300C

Born2flie: Bill, I was just arguing the merging of MBB/Kawasaki BK117 and Eurocopter EC 145 and using the illustration of the Hughes 300 linking to the Schweizer 300C, and here you've created an article for the Hughes 300. From what I've seen, you could incorporate this all into the prescribed Development and History sections of the Schweizer 300C article according to WP:Air's page content style guidelines. Since, ultimately, you may have to merge the two anyways. --00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that :) I've been working on it for two weeks here. Btw, I have a detailed explanation at Talk:Schweizer 300C#Hughes 300 article on my reasoning, and on alternatives. - BillCJ 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: I saw that explanation and came here afterwards. My comments are after reviewing your hard work...sorry! :) --01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you want to do? Now that I've mucked up the 300C article with the 330/333, do we want to plop all the Hughes info in with it? I'm OK with that, but I would like Hughes in the article title if we can. I don't mind splitting off the 333/330, but without any pics, and more info, it'd just be another stub.

I have re-read WP:AIR's Page content and Naming conventions, and I didn't see any guideline related to this type of problem. The only thing mentioned is that license-built aircraft should be covered under the manufacturer in most cases. Here, we have two manufacturers, one with a 30 year successful history of production before licensing, then later selling, the design. - BillCJ 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: I think one good article with all the Hughes information as development and history and the Hughes 269/300 redirecting to the Schweizer article will give a good unity to the article, and if written right, doesn't detract from the fact that the article name doesn't totally match the history. I also think that is why Wikipedia has the redirect pages, for when history takes these kinds of twists. Those searching for it can still find the information they want as well as learning how the situation has changed. I believe this is one of the advantages of the Wikipedia.

I don't think that anything you've added to either article is detrimental to a merged article or the visitor's understanding of the subject matter. --01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can handle the logistics of the merger, and fix the redirects. You can come along when you can and clean-up the text where it needs it.

All we need to agree on is the name. You like Schweizer 300C. I'd prefer a title more representative of the history, such as Hughes/Schweizer 300, though I'd accept Schweizer/Hughes 300. I'm not going to make a big deal of the issue, I just like to state my case, and see what happens. You and I seem to be the only ones doing any work on the article, so I don't think trying to poll for a consensus would do much good. If we do decide on a new name, the Schweizer article is much older, so we would just move it, and merge the Hughes 300. - BillCJ 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: How about:

• Schweizer (Hughes) 300C
• Schweizer 300C (Hughes 300)

--02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer Schweizer (Hughes) 300 (no C), tho I could live with Schweizer (Hughes) 300C if I had to. I think the palin 300 is more reflective of the fact that the series is more than just the 300C, and it allows for a future 300D if one comes along. - BillCJ 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: I was gonna come back to change my suggestions to reflect just that. I totally concur, no "C". --03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll start on it tonight or tomorrow. - BillCJ 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Move went through fine. I'll move this discussion to the new page when I can. - BillCJ 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed. Tweak away! - BillCJ 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: Tweaking occurring at Talk:Schweizer (Hughes) 300/inprocess --06:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Status

Born2flie: Need to know what you think of the status of the editing of the Talk:Schweizer (Hughes) 300/inprocess article is. Except for a couple facts, I'm really only missing significant information on the 330 and 333. Personally, I think we're about ready to put it into the namespace. --13:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Go for it! Good job. - BillCJ 17:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: Final merge completed on the namespace and available for copyedits and cleanup. --04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)