Talk:Bell 533/2007 draft talk

This page is the discussion page for a draft formely in User:Born2flie's userspace which led to these edits: [1]

1968 contract?

I'm led to believe that the second contract predates the "Early in 1968," reference that the Vertiflite article by Robb gives it. I'm continuing to look for a source for the actual contract date. In the meantime, I am considering whether to continue with the current section naming. --Born2flie (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Call it "Subsequent development" or something. The Avia 533 page says 1968 started a "subsequent phase of the program". Not sure it that means a new contract or another phase of the first contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the Vertiflite article that says it was a separate contract. There is another report which I am trying to get a hold of by a Dr./Mr. Dumond who worked at the Army Aviation Research Labs, I just don't want to pay $25.00 for a copy of it. Also, there is a report by Bell but it will cost $14 to get a hard copy and much of it will be technical stuff that isn't applicable to this article. --Born2flie (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think I found the Bell report you describe on dtic.mil, HPH phase 1 for example. The High Performance Helicopter Hoist Program must be something else. Lockheed did a report on it 1972. I might be able to find something through work library system... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the Bell report. I just don't feel like paying $14 for it right now. --Born2flie (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've asked to borrow the HPH phase 1 and 2 summary reports from the company library. Maybe I can get them scanned. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool. Let me know if you're able to accomplish that. --Born2flie (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I got those reports today. The part 2 one has some b&w pictures of the 533 that I can scan. They are DoD reports and I'll check the release markings. We should be able to use them as US-PD. -Fnlayson 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Images (black & white) added to sandbox article. I have another one showing the engines and pylons that I didn't upload. -Fnlayson 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• I scanned the reports. They are total 70 Mb in size. :( Also, they cover through mid-1964 (193 knots flight). -Fnlayson 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! 70MB? The pictures are great though! The source is verifiable, I just don't know that it meets the accessibility requirement of WP:VERIFY. Does it corroborate the information we have in the article, so far? --Born2flie 09:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Scanning non-pristine hard copies can do that. They reports appear to match what we have so far. Still looking at them. The reports can be ordered like books can (from ntis.gov). -Fnlayson 15:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Go live?

Thoughts on this draft? Anything needed to be cited, changes made prior to recommending insertion into the mainspace article? --Born2flie (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the main section name from Operational history to Development. I think that fits better. I'd put separate flight testing info in an Operational history section. I'd like to read through the Robb report and compare the wording. It didn't look like a problem on first look the other day though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the edit history, you will see that I purposely named it Operational history because the Operational history of this aircraft is the testing and modification it underwent as a research aircraft. There was no Development to get it to an operational status. My take on it. --Born2flie (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• The changes made during testing seemed like developmental things to me. But they are minor. Doesn't matter much to me. So will this replace the Development section in the main Bell 533 article or maybe add to it some way? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just how research aircraft are operated. Changes are made, they are never intended to become operational later in a specific configuration, they are "operational" even during the changes. The modifications are purposely done to gain data on the modifications. As for the mainspace article, I wrote this sandbox version with the intent of replacing the Development section. Since it would be a lot of editing, I decided to do it where it might not cause a lot of fuss, and I could get to finishing it when I got to finishing it. --Born2flie (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there anything major left to do to this scratch article before copying over text in main space article? We could wait on an image or more reference material maybe. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on Bzuk's and BillCJ's comments, I think that is all we're holding up for. --Born2flie (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it out into the wild. I'll keep looking for references. Jeff, thanks for your help! Bill (Bzuk) and Bill (BillCJ), thanks for your review and comments! On to the next one...whichever one that turns out to be. --Born2flie 09:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi. Do you think this image reported as "Photos from the Army Aviation Museum Archieves" is eligible for loading on wikipedia due to its {{PD-USGov}} status ? Let me know. --EH101 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ehm. At least for records, it is possible to mention km/h metric unit too ? --EH101 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speed conversions added. I'm not sure about image. The Army Aviation Museum is run by a private foundation, I think. That's not so clear cut. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The foundation funds the website. The museum is owned and operated by the United States Army in general, and Fort Rucker and the U.S. Army Aviation Warfighter Center in particular. It is still possible for the museum to have exhibits and materials that are on loan from individuals. An email should be able to verify if the image is PD. --Born2flie (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for explaining that. I couldn't get much from their web site. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

I'm thinking using the Aviastar page as a reference in multiple places. But their pages look like they copied text by the Book titles below each part. Maybe they rewrote the text. I need to find an entry from a book I have and check that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• It'd be better to use the Pelletier book directly just in case. I guess that's what you're doing Born. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, using the attributed author. To do that, I look up the book title at www.worldcat.org and then click on the book and author that match, then click on "Cite this item", and paste that into the article and format it for {{cite book}}. You can join Alan, Bill and myself discussing this site on Alan's talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a good system. I've been looking books up on Amazon. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall Impressions

On first read, it looks to be much more than a Sandbox project as it seems to be tight and well-written. I would like to see some additional inline citations and those APA styles for references still don't look right to me. I generally favour MLA styles for research articles, but each to his own. I concur that an image is needed for the infobox at least. Bzuk (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Which is why I would also ask everyone to look at the source and point out any areas that we might not have re-written well enough to eliminate any accusations of plagiarism. Jeff has already given it a look as he has been cinching down the particulars, but every eye will help.

As for the citation style, I simply use {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite paper}}, and {{cite web}}. The community takes care of the styling preference as a matter of consensus on those templates. I just give them the information. --Born2flie (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can find an image somewhere with a copyright attributed to Bell, then we can use it under fair use, AFAIK. I'll be looking to see what i can find. - BillCJ (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wrote to the Army museum webmaster above mentioned. Let's see what happens. --EH101 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much EH101. Hope you get a reply soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In clarifying my original statement; in order to have a more authoritative work, the use of numerous reference sources is usually recommended, given the subject matter and the availability of the sources. One of the benchmarks for a thoroughly researched and attributed Wikipedia article is to have a citation for each major passage. This standard is rarely achieved and in the case of a smaller article is probably unnecessary as many statements can be assumed to have been the result of the same reference source that is quoted. For a small article, typically, providing at least two end/footnotes and two primary reference sources for a bibliography can suffice. FWIW, them ^&%$# templates are still a bugaboo to me; they remain full of errors, quirky and written in a generalized American Psychiatric Association (APA) style rather than the more accepted Modern Language Association (MLA) guide that is more often associated with research. Pardon my language. Bzuk (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

No apologies for language necessary with me (I cuss like the proverbial sailor, at times), and thanks for the explanation on your statement. I'm not sure why APA is preferred in the Wikipedia, or at least on the {{cite}} templates. That would take more research. It might do to discuss that within the WikiProject Aircraft to determine if we have a consensus preference, MLA or APA. As it is, there are maybe a couple other references, but I'd have to pay to access copies. I will do some more research and see if I can come up with more references, including more printed sources. --Born2flie (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Landing gear ?

During the Italian translation I am doing for it.wiki I saw an anomaly I suggest to check. It is written ...The landing gear also had streamlined fairings applied to it... Did the 533 have skids or a landing gear? --EH101 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Landing skids. It's an enhanced UH-1. See link in Image section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty sure of it (images are clear), so it should be corrected in the article.--EH101 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Skids are a type of landing gear. If the question is what kind of landing gear does the aircraft have, the answer would be either skids, or wheels and then a configuration (tricycle or taildragger). --Born2flie (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I do not agree completely. Landing gears are in my opinion different from skids (I am aware there are some gears with skids for iced environment also, just to complicate the issue). In my mind landing gears differ mainly for having a kind of steering capabilty on ground which completely lacks on fixed skids. Anyway, I think a little improvement could be done on this article part in order to help readers to better understand 533 real landing configuration.

One more: It is written: "In this configuration, the 533 achieved a true airspeed of 150 knots (173 mph, 278 km/h) in straight-and-level flight". I checked and I understood this result had a major meaning, because maximum speed of unmodified Bell UH1 is only 135 mph. I suggest to highlight this in the article writing something like: "In this configuration, the 533 achieved a true airspeed of 150 knots (173 mph, 278 km/h) in straight-and-level flight, which was a promising achievement being unmodified UH1 max speed 135 mph only" or something similar better explained--EH101 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at an aircraft recognition guide, even for helicopters, it is called landing gear. The Wikipedia article Undercarriage is about landing gear and also agrees that skids are a type of landing gear particular to many helicopters. The Bell website refers to the Bell 429 as having sled type landing gear and the other airframes as having "skid gear", an accepted version of "skid landing gear". MD Helicopters refers to the standard skids on the 500E, 520N, and 530F as "short landing gear" and "skid landing gear" on the 600N. A cursory scan of Eurocopter shows that they refer to the skids as "skid landing gear". Jane's uses "skid landing gear". --Born2flie (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I surrender. It is mainly an error I did due to different Italian common meaning. But now, as I remember well, even in Italian there is the equivalent of "skid landing gear"(carrello a pattino) in more formal technical language. So the solution is very simple: look at the very fist post of this paragraph; it should be enough to substitute ...The landing gear also had streamlined fairings applied to it... with ...The skid landing gear also had streamlined fairings applied to it.... Isn't it ?--EH101 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more critical to the Italian translation than it is to the article in English, but it can be changed. --Born2flie (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I can understand some confusion. I know skids are landing gear, but I think of wheeled gear first. Can we use "skid landing gear" to be clearer? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)