Talk:Bell 412/Archive 1

Archive 1

Link

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/commercial/bell412.cfm

Here info for this page if anyones is interested

Sorry if this is not the correct location/method for offering a citation/link, but regarding the inclusion of BLR strakes and FastFin in the 412EPI, Bell's web page verifies those features: http://bellhelicopter.com/en_US/Commercial/Bell412EPI/1192851172973.html#/?tab=features-tab MarkBennett13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBennett13 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge CH-146 Griffon here

No reason for that to be a separate article. I support that it be merged into this article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• oppose -- It is traditional to have separate articles for the military and civilian versions of aircraft. I can think of a dozen examples, and cannot think of a single example where an aircraft had a single article for the civilian and military versions. No advantage to this merge occurrs to me. And the person who proposed it hasn't advanced any. Maybe they presumed it was obvious. Well, it is not obvious. -- Geo Swan 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the CH-146 page contains: a statement that CH-146 is the Canadian designation of the Bell 412 and a set of very incomplete specifications that don't differ from the Bell 412 because (surprise!) CH-146 does not differ from Bell 412. It is the same helicopter with a different designation. There is no "tradition" of having separate pages for Civilian and Military versions, and it's certainly not in the WP:Air Mos. There are pages where this is the case because there is actual content at both pages that would make for a very long page if combined. Bell 412 has barely any content and CH-146 has none at all. A redirect and a properly written Bell 412 page that adheres to the MoS would do a better job. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• support -- I agree with Emt147 - MilborneOne 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak support I see no problem with this merger, but admit I don't know very much about the subject. heqs 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Support - Other helicpter acrticles have the same page for both the military and civilian variants. I suggest making the Grifon and secion of the 412 acrticle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.84.15 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 May 2006

• support - While the -146 is unique in avionics and other details, it is at heart a Bell-412. [Alan Browne, Lorraine, QC, 2006.08.13]

• Support - The CH-146 only differs from the Bell 412 in avionics and other slight details. We also must take two other things into account. First, a great number of nations use the Bell 412 within their militaries, and most of which refer to it as the Bell 412, and these aircraft share an even greater compatibility with the CH-146 than civilian models. Secondly, Canada has a history of giving the aircraft peculiar designations. Thus the F/A-18 becomes the CF-18, the F-5 Freedom Fighter the CF-116 Freedom Fighter, the AgustaWestland EH101 becomes the CH-149 Cormorant, and the SH-3 Sea King becomes the CH-124 Sea King. It goes without saying that these aircraft while in Canadian service have undergone upgrades and modifications not done to many of their European or American counterparts. But this does not make these aircraft into completely different aircraft. At most it would make them variants. They contain the same airframe, engines, etc. And thus not being completely different do not warrant different pages, only a section within the main article. It is also interesting that many other Canadian designated aircraft have their own articles, such as the CF-18 Hornet and the CF-116 Freedom Fighter while other, such as the CH-149 Cormorant have only a section within a larger article, or even less. This suggests that this argument goes far beyond this page in particular. Puddhe 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Oppose"

I do not support the merging of the CH-146 with the Bell 412. While the Griffon is substantially similar to the 412HP from a mechanical perspective, it is truly and significantly distinct as far as avionics, including mission-management systems, are concerned (in Bell parlance, it is actually known as the 412CF rather than 412HP). In addition, it is flown by the Canadian Forces under the authority of its own Canadian Military Airworthiness Type Certificate (like all other CF combat-capable aircraft). The implication is that its configuration can and does change solely to meet CF operational requirements, independently from other 412 variants. Examples include the complete integration of surveillance/intelligence sensors into the mission-management systems, as well as the actual and eventual fitment of air-ground weapons. I propose those differences justify a separate article.

• Concur. The CH146 Griffon is not merely another model B412. Not only is it properly designated B412CF as noted above, but it is more properly based on the 412 EP, not the HP. Additionally, the CH146 has a dual MIL-STD-1553B digital databus-base avionics management system that is used by no other 412 variant, including the AB412. What would the goal for a merger be? Save a few hundred kilobytes? The page for the CH146 is links with several pages from the Canadian Forces and Air Force sites that are specific to the CH146 Griffon's membership in the Canadian Air Force inventory that have nothing to do with civilian Bell 412 SP, HP and EPs. Regards, D.T. Kingston, Canada.

• Concur. The standard configuration for EMS on a 412EP allows for 3 litters while the Griffon configures for up to 6 litters. There seems to be significant differences that would result in a much lengthier article on the 412 and may serve to confuse people who are looking for 412 or Griffon information. (Born2flie)

• Concur - keep mil and civilian versions seperate Akradecki 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good! We now have 4 volunteers to work on expanding the CH-146 page so it can stay separate. Cool!! Good luck.

Btw, I support merging smaller articles about the same basic designs together, even if they are technically different in many ways. The civil 204s and 205s are all covered under the UH-1 Iroquois article, while the UH-1N/Y are on both the UH-1 and Bell 212 pages. But once we have enough info to make a moderate-sized article, I'm not opposed to giving them their own pages.

All the models I just mentioned probably deserve their own page, but there's just not enough content already here to justify doing it now. The argument over whether the S-92 and H-92/CH-148 versions should be the title of the one article was solved by splitting them up. Both pages are fairly small now, but still longer than the CH-146 page. -- BillCJ 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag removal

Looks like there's no consensus, and this has been up for some time, so I'm removing the tag. Akradecki 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The merge with CH-146 did not go through. Is there enough info available to expand this article? -Fnlayson 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

List of the (military) operators,

Finland is mentioned and this is not correct, there is not a single one militaty 412 in finland and never has been, only borderguard has few 2-4 cannot recall the correct number, but these are not military machines nor is the institution using them military but rather kind of limited police organisation which is under control of the ministry of interior and not the department of defence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bell-412/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bell 412/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Stub article. There isn't a lot on development or history of the aircraft. Most of the article is comprised of specifications and operators. (Born2flie 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Last edited at 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Japanese UH-2; Twin Engine?

I was reading outside articles on the UH-2, which do not include full specifications, however, they make a big deal about the fact that the new Subaru/Bell UH-2 has TWO engines. Otherwise, they go along with the basic story that it is a new construction, updated, 4-blade militarized version of the Bell 412EPI. Here is the quote from Janes making news of the engines:

"The new twin-engined helicopter features a four-bladed main rotor, unlike the single-engined UH-1J, which has a two-bladed main rotor."

Japan completes development of UH-2 multirole helicopter for JGSDF, by Kosuke Takahashi, Janes.com, June 25, 2021

Now the original UH-1 and the commercial follow-on Bell 412 all use the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T, which is known as a "Twin-Pac" as the engine comprises two turbines driving a common output reduction gearbox. Nevertheless, in this (and other articles, like the Asian Military Review) they make a point of calling the UH-1 and Bell 412 single-engine, while the new Subaru/Bell UH-2 has two-engines.

I think that someone should, as this gets into the air over the next couple of years find out if it actually has Two engines, or if it simply is using a new version of the PT6T?

I wouldn't put it past the Japanese to have developed a new set of engines entirely, in which case, you might have to break the Japanese military's new UH-2 into an entirely new category as a Variant?

James 203.150.156.104 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the UH-2 and 412EPX still use the PT6T twin-pack, probably the -9 variant. That engine installation has always caused confusion, and so this isn't new. The Japanese UH-1J is definitely the single-engined Huey model, based on the UH-1H. BilCat (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The UH-2/412EPX does appear to use an uprated gearbox, so perhaps it's able to use more power from the power cores than previous 412 versions, making it more like a traditional twin engine installation. BilCat (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The UH-2 is a military version of the Bell 412EPX.

The Bell 412 Type Certificate says Data Pertinent to Model 412EP Helicopter Serial Numbers 38001 thru 38999 and 39101 thru 39999 (Improved Model 412EP, designated as 412EPX for marketing purposes, see Note 51) The following data, limitations, and conditions apply to areas of the helicopter which are changed: Engines Pratt & Whitney Canada, Corp. Model PT6T-9 Twin Power Section Turboshaft (Ref. Note 12 on engine Type Certificate Data Sheet No. E22EA).

Note 51 says: NOTE 51. Model 412EP, helicopter serial numbers 38001 thru 38999, and serial numbers 39101 thru 39999, represent the productionization of STC SR09600RC (Bell BasiX-Pro Glass Cockpit and Pratt&Whitney Canada PT6T-9 engine) and STC SR09535RC-D (Dual Tailboom Strakes and FastFin System) and incorporation into the type design of the modified lever assembly of main rotor collective control, modified tail rotor blades, modified main gearbox and mast assembly, modified main rotor hub, and upgraded displays. It is designated 412EPX for marketing purposes only.

So it is powered by a P&W PT6T-9, as BilCat surmised. The FAA, at least, consider this a single engine with two power sections, as noted in the type certifiable, although Bell markets it as "twin engined". - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)