Talk:Bell AH-1Z Viper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Specs

I have sourced specs for the AH-1Z (published in 2002) that I can add in a few days. We may be able to find updated numbers on Navy or USMC sites also. - BillCJ (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for input

I think the Viper name is incorrect. My books don't say anything about that. One says the Marines will retain the SuperCobra name for the Z. Also, one reference (Inter Directory) says it had the Viper name for a short time. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Development needs provide come history of the the work. The AH-1Z started with a contract in 1996 for 180 AH-1Zs (rebuild AH-1Ws). Development work went at a slow pace until 2003, etc. I addressed the start part anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting some info on Development from Bell Heli. WebsiteANigg (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• That'll be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW I think your right, "Viper" may not be the name, just as UH-1Y "Venom" I haven't quite been able to verify that name (Venom) as well. I'm wondering if we should leave it. Seems to be the as the nickname thats showing from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANigg (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Viper should be fine for here. If/when this tuens into a main space article, the right name will be need to be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not looked yet, but I belive I added a Navy/MC source somewhere, probably in the Venom article, that uses those names and implies they are at least semi-official. I'll see what I can find a bit later. - BillCJ (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Found UH-1Y Venom Light Utility Helicopter and AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopter. Btw, on the same site calls the MH-60S the "Seahawk", not the "Knighthawk", an unofficial name that I have found on Navy ship and squadron pages. - BillCJ (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I came across the Viper page there. I wasn't sure if the info was old (Intl Directory) or what. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I used to work on the testing team, the USMC plans to retain the Super Cobra name. To my knowledge only the Australians are planning to use the Viper name. I propose the name be changed to Super Cobra for the article, possible with an AKA Viper in parenthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.71.254 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Main space?

Do we have enough to give this bird its own page?ANigg (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Design section is good, but there's not many details in the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Added more to Development section, let me know if were heading in the right directionANigg (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Try to add reference(s) with the new material. Much harder to figure out where it came from later. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx w/ the help on the Refernces, any other areas we want to improve? ANigg (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready for a main page? I think Born2file is right, lets get this baby to bedANigg (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. I'll check it again tomorrow when I'm more awake, and see if there's anything we haven't covered. Notability is not a problem, so if we move it to the mainspace as-is, we should be fine on that issue. There might be some other issues that come to light once we go live, but usually happens. If you want to ask for a quick review from WT:AIR, you might get a chance to solve any problems before going live, but honestly, I've gone live with a lot less than what you got here. Remember, someone will have to redo the SuperCobra page to remove Viper info. (Most of it - there needs to be links in the proper places, and some mention in the text of the Viper as the Whiskey's successor.) I can do that, and I'm sure Jeff is capable of doing it too, if he is able to find time. (I'm not volunteering Jeff - He works, I don't, but we both sleep!) - BillCJ (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, I could clean-up the Z stuff in the Super Cobra article. This article could use some more eyes looking at it though, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it can be moved. Some comments from WT:air would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks ready for the move to me.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Looks like that image you e-mailed me came from the Bell Pocket Guide, page 63. That could be a fair use image. It does not show much without the UH-1Y in there with it though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few comments:

• Intro - Need to add country of origin to intro - is an American twin-engined
• Dev - upgrading 100 UH-1Ns into UH-1Ys also included - upgrading of a 100 UH-1Ns into UH-1Y was also included.
• Dev - first flight was conducted - dont think you need conducted it wasnt an orchestra!
• Dev - to be followed by low-rate initial production beginning in February 2002 - should this be past tense
• Design - some of it is a bit like a sales brochure talk - not sure the size of the displays is notable or the supplier - not sure why L-3 are mentioned non of the other suppliers are listed.
• Design - THALES should be Thales it is a company name not an acronyn.
• Mentions Target Sight System in intro but not mentioned in body.

Still a good article and should be moved to its own space when your happy with it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the conducted wording was me rewording from a reference. I think the 'to be followed by low-rate initial production in February 2002' was the plan. I'm not sure if that started then or later. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Working on the rest. Some help would be good (anybody). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is some of this article a direct copy of [1]? MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the sentences in the Design section look to be the same. The Mil Power article looks like a direct copy of the AF tech article though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just concerned as both sites are copyright dont want a copyvio tag as soon as the page is released into main wiki.MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anybody help with this statement The communications suite combines the new US Navy RT-1824 integrated radio, UHF/VHF, COMSEC and modem in a single unit which does not appear to make sense. The RT-1824 appears to be a transceiver, normally the term UHF/VHF normally describes a dual-band transceiver is it the same or different to RT-1824 or just badly worded? MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Near as I can tell they have combined the four things (radio, UHF/VHF, Comsec & modem) into 1 box. The Bell pocket guide and AF Tech article both word it the way you quoted. I reworded it some, but don't understand it enough to do much more. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Country of origin

I added the country of origin in the intro as is standard with aircraft articles but have been reverted by ANigg. With the statement that because USMC is mentioned it is not needed. You cant assume that because the customer is mentioned it is American as US forces do use foreign aircraft. As it is his space I will wait and put it back when it is moved to mainspace! MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been lobbying for a "Country of origin" (possibly "Nation of origin" or "National origin", so we don't confuse the UKish who will try to put England instead of UK ;) ) in the Infobox Aircraft for nearly a year now. While it's recieved cursory possitive comments, no one, including myself (unsure of template formatting), has taken steps to implement it. Perhaps we ought to try again? - BillCJ (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll put it back in "Orign of Country: - Just note Bell UH-1Y Vemon dose not mention "An American utility Helicopter" nor is it mentioned in the AW101 As an Anglo-Italian Helicopter" But I want all the editors to be happyANigg (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting

I've done a bunch of rewriting on this. I doubt there will be any copyright issues left. But I've looked at it too long to really tell. And I've had enough of this for a while... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just taken a quick look having seen the WT:AIR note; and I think a bit of a copyedit would help before it goes "public". I'll give it a quick shot – the changes can always be undone if required. --Red Sunset 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, other sets of eyes are always appreciated.  :) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref

Maybe this for the missing ref? "The first examples of either type were handed over on 15 October 2005 for final operational evaluation." Armada International. Ship-based helicopters: what's hot and what's not.(Rotorcraft: naval). 01 April 2006. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"First production aircraft delivered to US Marine Corps 15 October 2005." Janes too. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gee, I looked through the USMC and Navy press releases and couldn't find anything on accepting the first one. I'll add that, thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you all for your contribs to this page, -Fnlayson,- BillCJ,- MilborneOne,and Red, I couldn't have gotton it done without you guys. One down and many more to come. ANigg (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

Some images that could be used in the article until better ones become available.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
•