Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disc Area and Landing Area

This article does not mention anywhere the amount of space (area) a V-22 needs to land vertically, and it seems difficult to reasonably infer for this reason: In the helicopter article, it says that helicopters need "approximately twice the area of the rotor disk" to land, and the specifications section lists the "Disc area" for the V-22 as being 9,100 sq ft - but doesn't say if this is the area of one rotor's disc or both rotors' discs added together, and the helicopter article was talking about copters with only one rotor. Furthermore, the Osprey is the only aircraft with two rotors mounted side-by-side, and so the conventional rule for landing area of a helicopter might not even apply. The long and short of this is, the article needs to say somewhere what the minimum landing area of a V-22 is, even approximately (I don't know if such a statistic is readily available), because it's not a trivial fact that could be deduced from the statistics given as it is with normal helicopters. --Edward Tremel 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has conflicting values for rotor diameter and disc area. If rotor diameter is 38 feet as noted, then the math rule for area of a circle (PI times radius squared) gives a total disk area of 2268 square feet (for two rotors), not 9100 square feet. --Mark Cayton 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. But assuming that the rotor is mounted 2 feet in from the end of the 46 foot wingspan (-4 = 42), add two radii (38/2)*2 and you would have 80 feet. So if we were to double that for safety, 160 feet. That times the length of 57 feet gives 9,120. It's an educated guess, but doesn't seem that unreasonable. Nobody said it would be a circle. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Performance figures

There has been, to put it kindly, a lot of performance figures put out for the V-22 that aren't as straightforward as one would like.I changed the previous listing of Combat range: 1,249 nm (1,437 miles; 2,313 km);

Range implies a 2-way trip, and the V-22's given ferry range included air-air refueling. The similarity of the 2 figures (combat range x 2 and ferry range) leads to an implausible figure, therefore. The figures I've seen indicate that unrefueled combat range is about 590 miles. There are helicopters with more range, so I'm not surprised the contractors have been somewhat slow to clear up this misconception.

In addition, the V-22's cruising speed at or near sea level is only about 185 knots. This compares to about 150 knots, for instance, with the EH101 helicopter - not so much of an advantage. I didn't remove the existing figures, but I did add a sea level figure so people would be aware of it

• I think that this is a bit misleading. A 35 kt advantage for a jet fighter is negligible, but a 35 kt advantage for a helicopter is fabulous (nearly a 20% improvement over a very fast helicopter). Since this has been written originally, there have been updated changes to the aircraft. The USAF states that the cruising speed is 277 mph (241 kts) and range as 2100 nm and I have put these in the updated changes. In addition, the range seems somparable to the stated unrefueled range on the official Air Force website. Can someone get this updated?

How does the Osprey compare to existing Sea Stallion and Super Stallion performance? CH-47 performance? 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Raryel

-- Joe Katzman: Sept. 20, 2005

Oct 29, 2005 --- sea level cruise is 220-240 knots, depending on desired fuel flow. At max continuous power (very poor specific range), sea level airspeed is 260 knots. Where did you get 185 from?

The wing rotates?

The article contains the sentence "The wing rotates for compact storage aboard ship.". Does this really mean "the wings fold back for compact storage aboard ship."? The proximity of this mention of rotation to the discussion of the nacelle rotation would lead one to believe they both rotate in the same manner (which doesn't seem like a smart idea for the wing). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Plase see the photos (though you already know...): 1(Boeing), 2(USN) and 3(USN). If necessary, we can use the photo on USN site by uploading it to commons as {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. 2 is better maybe? - Marsian / talk 08:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The middle pic is clearest, I think. "Folds back" isn't really correct. Perhaps "For compact storage aboard ship, the entire wing assembly can be rotated horizontally". Hmm, that's still not terribly clear... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed it to be more clear.--Rbeas 00:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"about the z-axis" is not clear. That implies a frame of reference which is not given. --59.167.110.86 15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Canonical axes are X in direction of flight (roll axis), Y horizontal and perpendicular to X (pitch), Z vertical (yaw). Perhaps it should say yaw axis? I would find Z more intuitive for non-aviation readers(who would understand both) as Z is typically the "up" in vector geometry as well. --Mmx1 15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Style and dates

Hi, reading this article it seems to be written with a lot of contemporary references; e.g., "recently the ...", "not long ago...", etc., these refernces to time should be put in context!

Also nowhere in the article does it mention who actually builds this aircraft... the external links at the bottom tell one that it's Boeing but shouldn't that be mentioned in the article itself?

Neutrality of Development section

Hey, I've marked the Development section as having NPOV issues. It is currently lacking any mention of questions raised regarding the v-22's combat manuveuring. It also implies that the VRS problem has been solved, which is not true. As of now, there has simply been the addition of a warning blinker and voice that says "sink rate" to warn of VRS. There is also no mention of criticism from the government regarding its lack of a defensive gun. If someone could please balance the pros and cons in this section that would be great, I'll add in some of the stuff I mentioned above myself as well.

And can someone provide sources for many of the claims made including the following: "As a result of testing, the Osprey will have a descent envelope as larger or larger than most helicopters, further enhancing its ability to enter and depart hostile landing zones quickly and safely."

• VRS has not been "solved" in the traditional sense any more than stalls have been solved in aircraft. the developers are are aware of the aircraft's limitations and handle them accordingly. Prior to this VRS was not fully considered given the fact that the wing produces lift

What Neutrality?

What are the warnings provided in helicopters? None. What are the actions required by pilots for helo VRS? Numerous and counter intuitive and they result in significant loss of altitude. What have the US Marine Corps and NAVAIR said? Loads. Just ask. Some of us aren't biased, just factual. References to "the government" are like references to "some people". Be factual. The program is implementing a ramp gun now and will likely add other locations in time. Don't slam, just ask.

Erroneous Criticism?

The article says, "Critics state that the aircraft will never be mature enough for reasons of pure physics — the V-22 cannot be fixed because of its flawed side-by-side rotor design, although the tandem rotor CH-46 and CH-47 helicopters have been operational for over 30 years." However, the CH-46 and CH-47 have forward and rear rotors, not side-by-side rotors. I am presuming that this renders the criticism baseless since there is a significant aerodynamic difference between the two configurations. Am I right? Can someone with more knowledge of this topic confirm this and edit out that last part, if necessary. Cheers! --Hux 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no aerodynamicist, but I see no reason to think that a side-by-side rotor arrangement is 'flawed'. Early helicopters (Focke-Achgelis and some others) and the giant, record-setting Mil Mi-12 used this arrangement without issues. The critics seem to be basing their claims on their gut - while Stephen Colbert might appreciate it, aerodynamics is a science. ericg ✈ 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are significant differences between this design and tandem-rotor helicopters. For example, the engines on a Chinook are in separate locations from the transmission and collective pitch mechanism. Close proximity (as in the V-22 nacelles) causes failures to multiply. For example, in one of the accidents leaking transmission fluid (a minor transmission failure) was injested and caused a major engine failure, and loss of the aircraft with no survivors. It is a basic rule of safety engineering to break the dependencies between risk factors. In this case, that means physically separating critical components such as engines, transmissions, and rotor pitch mechanisms. In Afganistan (Robert's Ridge) a Chinook took a missile hit directly in one engine and still managed to land safely. I am very skeptical that the V-22 can do the same. -Dalebert July 10, 2007

Popular Culture

This has always driven me nuts, that people feel inclined to include every esoteric movie, video game and anime reference to a particular airframe in "Popular Culture". I mean, do I really need to know all 20 movies that the F-16 appeared in? Not to mention a listing of all the latest war games. I'm sorry, but with some exceptions, the majority of video games and anime don't count as "popular culture".

I'm going to go vent on the town waterpump or whatever passes for General Discussion here, but I did draw the line at discussing unrelated fictional variants of the V-22.

--Mmx1 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well actually in the anime series Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, which was made before the V-22. They have a vehicle that is exactly like the V-22...and I mean exactly like it.

Rgoodermote 19:38 June 15Th 2007 (UTC)

According to the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex page, its first run was in 2004. The V-22 was developed in the 1980s, with its first flight in 1989. Even the the V-22 is just entering service now, the basic design hasn't changed. So, no, the anime was not made before the V-22, by about 15 years. - BillCJ 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad...should have said Ghost in the Shell, came out in the 1980s as well. They had the exact model of vehicle in it...sorry I tend to get these things messed up

Rgoodermote 17:31, June 16Th 2007 (UTC)

you know what...you win..I know there was an anime that came out before that had the exact design as the vehicle in question...I just can not remember it.

Rgoodermote 17:32, June 16Th 2007 (UTC)

Development

This section reads like it was written by a military contractor - it is totally NPOV. At the very least, the claims about improvements with respect to the VRS should be (and have been) identified as *claims*. They have not been made by an objective authority, but rather by groups that have strong monetary incentives to see the V-22 through to completion, regardless of whether it is or is not flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.201.94 (talk • contribs)

Uh huh. How about the word of the Marine Corps, who will be sending it into combat by year-end? Seems like they've got a lot at stake as well. How are your *claims* about VRS any different? I'll take the Corps over an anon any day of the week.--Mmx1 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Marine Corps are the ones who were found to be covering up the maintanance records -- User:Fromos 24 May 2006

Marine Corps is one of the groups that has a monetary incentive to see it through to completion. Are you really saying that you have absolutely no idea how the government budgetary process works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.201.94 (talk • contribs)

Right, because our monetary incentive in BUYING the aircraft so we can fly and jump out of them is causing us to buy shitty aircraft. I see your logic. Wait, no, I don't. Any Marine officer culpable of putting troop welfare second to monetary considerations would be lynched. --Mmx1 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: nobody gets promoted for being a whistle-blower or blocking weapons from getting into service. But don't worry, just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.201.94 (talk • contribs)

Can you sign your posts? Just put --~~~~ after them. Nobody gets promoted for getting Marines killed, either. The two officers that tried to rush the program along by putting 18 Marines on a developmental aircraft and got them killed were relieved of command. Yea, no shit nobody gets promoted for blocking weapons from getting into service. The -46's are older than my parents. --Mmx1 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All this abstract bickering is pointless. What really matters is this: are their any specific, actionable ways to improve the article's neutrality using proper source material? Ingoolemo ^talk 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing this abstract bickering as it contributes nothing to the given subject.

I think the original point "This section reads like it was written by a military contractor" is very valid. This is one of the most biased articles I have read on Wikipedia. Even the sources are biased-- Boeing, Boeing, Boeing. I smell corporate and government interests in every section of this article. Dalebert-- July 12 2007

That's fine to take that position, but the problem is that you're trying to counter it by changing the text without adding citations. Add the citations with your information and your edits will be fine. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When I read the article, I say a heavy anti-tiltrotor bias. It reads like a political pamphlet! What other aircraft article has so much space devoted to it's so-called problems? Most just have a Incidents section listing the notable accidents, and maybe a few sentences elsewhere on problems, but certianly not this vendetta against the V-22!

See? Two can play that game! But I was serious about there being a strong anti-tilt-rotor "tilt" to the article. If both of see it as biased, but from opposite viewpoints, then objectivley, th article probably covers both views pretty well. - BillCJ 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, I concede the point about sources. I will cite solid sources in the future. As far as Bill CJ's comments-- Yes there is a lot about the V-22's problems compared to other aircraft. That is because it has a lot of problems compared to other aircraft. Can you name any other aircraft that has killed 28(check my math) people before it even got into production? If that is a "so-called problem" I would hate to see an actual problem. The biases against the V-22 are based on it's issues. I love aircraft in general, but it is only the V-22 that I am biased against. Dalebert Aug 6 2007

External Link Edits

Please see Talk:Tiltrotor#Revert_Advert.3F--Aerospacenews.com 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Video is better than a thousand pictures

People can whine about critics all they want but V-22 Osprey has been a failed project from the get go. Here's all the proof you need:

"Weeeeeeeeeeee"

'Nuff said.

Yikes!

I hardly think that counts as "all the proof you need." That incident was 15 years ago, and if you'd bother to read the article you'd know that they've fixed the problems that caused it by now. I don't think the Osprey would have passed OPEVAL if it still did stuff like that. Whoever you are, stop being a pessimistic naysayer. This is a waste of space on the talk page. --Edward Tremel 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the V-22 had a rough start, but to show one video and call that "all the proof you need" is ridiculous and challenges your own credibility as a nuetral author. Many succesful aircraft have had patchy starts, especially when they are breaking new ground like the Osprey does. I was fortunate enough to have talked with a few of the Marine Osprey pilots in training while they were operating out of St. John's County Airport in St. Augustine in January, and from what I gathered any and all flaws from the past are non-existent now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk • contribs)

Fuel Consumption

How's the fuel efficiency? I imagine that it consumes more than a same size prop fixed-wing, but less than a heli. Anyone have specific numbers? Jigen III 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Side mounted machine guns?

The third paragraph of the article mentions side mounted machine guns but the rest of the article never clarifies what model(s) is/are used. Fine, different forces will probably use different weapons but what do the Marines use (seeing as they are the main user) or perhaps what are fitted as standard (if that happens). Thanks in advance! --Hydraton31 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no plans to mount side guns for the reasons stated there. --Mmx1 18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the wording of this confusing and so tried to clear it up by clarifying that, because of the reasons stated, there are no machine guns side mounted, hope it helped. --Hydraton31 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Longest development?

Is this the longest development programme in the history of aviation? If not, it's up there. 86.7.208.240 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the flying wing, which took from the 1930's to the 1980's, to become the production B-2 "Spirit", probably had the longest development program, (that the public is aware of). The V-2 with it's tilt-rotor concept has certainly had a long development time. The helicopter took a long time prior to becoming practical. So did the vertical take-off and landing fixed-wing aircraft; the Hawker Siddeley Harrier.204.80.61.10Bennett Turk

Aerodynamics and tilt-rotors

I have a query about this newly added paragraph:

Experienced aerodynamicists have pointed out that a propellor or rotor does not provide much motive force, but only stirs the air around it, unless there is windflow into it...

That may well be the case, but it

1. needs a better source than "experienced aerodynamicists",
2. needs to be related back to the ability of the V-22 to do its job.

As to the merits of the objection, wouldn't it be possible (and indeed standard operating procedure) to use the tiltrotors to gain a fair bit of horizontal velocity before switching to "airplane mode" - and wouldn't this only be done from a nice comfy altitude anyway?

As far as I recall (and I'm certainly no expert on the matter), the biggest criticism of the V-22's utility in a combat role (and one not discussed in the article, which should be fixed at some stage) is that its safe descent rate is far slower than a Chinook, let alone smaller military choppers. Therefore, it's a sitting duck for RPG's, Stinger missiles, and the like on the way down. --Robert Merkel 07:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the above has chosen to ignore is the fact that 800 m/s is the maximum SAFE decent rate. The crash involving a too high decent rate was a 2000 m/s. I am positive that not even the Chinook could drop that fast.

As for the earlier comment of it needing to gain altitude before needing to change into "Airplane mode", if you look at the way the rotors turn, there is no problem. As the rotors tilt, it gives the plane speed. You push the throttle to near max and you begin the change cycle. As you move faster, you begin to create lift, once sufficient lift is formed, the aircraft has compleated the transformation into "airplane mode."

Okay people, the sink rate in rotorcraft is limited by onset of VRS. On a single rotor helicopter, if you enter VRS, you drop like a rock. But you drop like a right-side-up rock, autorotate, and hopefully use that energy to gain forward speed and recover. On the V-22, VRS will most probably affect one rotor before the other. You lose lift on one side, before the other. Therefore, you get to start your recovery upside-down. The crash in Arizona impacted in an inverted position. I disagree with the article stating that this is "relatively easy." I would prefer starting the recovery from a right-side up position. This is one (of many) deadly defects in the design. -Dalebert July 12, 2007

Pop Culture

Have finally nuked the Pop Culture section. There's nothing particularly useful in it and it's a magnet for speculation and videogame cruft. Wikipedia is not a directory of movie or video game appearances; for its appearance to be notable it has to be more than an "appearance". The typical example is the F-14 and Top Gun. In the absense of such examples for the V-22, I don't feel that discussing a 30-second appearance of the V-22 in a cut-scene of a video game particularly warrants mention. --Mmx1 20:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the deletion. Keep it out. BQZip01 07:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Noise Level

Does anyone know how noisy the Osprey is? I have heard it is very loud, and I think the last thing the USA military needs is a loud, subsonic, propellor-driven aircraft that tells everyone with a machine gun or missile that it's headed their way.204.80.61.10 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I am not sure how noisy it is, but it is not designed to be a stealth vehicle. It is designed to fill the gap between a cargo helicopter and a cargo prop (like a C-130). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I witnessed it in flight at the Farnborough Air show. It's quiet. Dan100 (Talk) 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Osprey is much quieter than the CH-47 Chinook, a (somewhat) comparable aircraft. On a calm day, the pulsing sound of the Chinook can *easily* be heard miles away, whereas an Osprey has a smoother sound. I have observed both aircraft under similar conditions.

They say it is "75% quieter than comparing helicopters." source (FutureWeapons)--ProdigySportsman 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that perhaps the noise reduction was in airplane mode (since the rotors move a lot slower, and perhaps since it changes the acoustic radiation pattern to be more downward than forward). While I can't say for volume, I can say the V22 has a very distinctive double-womp in both modes. - Davandron | Talk 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When in propeller mode, it has significantly lower sound signature than do helicopters. When in vertical mode, it is comparably noisy. But... it takes more Ospreys to fulfill a lift requirement to a similar probability of success as that of helicopters. Increased numbers increase the operation's signature. source (Colenol Riccioni, USAF Ret. --User:Fromos 21 Feb 2007

it takes more Ospreys to fulfill a lift requirement to a similar probability of success as that of helicopters is really a useless statement without qualifiers, especially when range and speed are taken into account. The Osprey is not so much a replacement for the helicopter in general as it is a compliment to it. Be careful of reading one-sided critiques from critics with an obvious bias against an aircraft without being discerning. Some critics will almost have one believe that the V-22 carries less useful payload than the Bell 206! - BillCJ 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Osprey may be quiet while its in flight but living on an Air Force base that has them I can tell you that when they take of vertically my house shakes. Its as if someone is beating on my walls with a sledge hammer. (NucPhy7 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

What about rappelling out the manhole in the middle of the aircraft?

Limitations paragraph states: "Because of the extreme downdraft of the propellers, Marines cannot rappel out the side doors as on conventional helicopters." This may be but what about down the manhole, which is what they do with most CH-53 and CH-46 air assaults in the Marine Corps. --ProdigySportsman 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramp is an option; manhole is notHJ 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical report

I removed the following text from the artilce primarily because its incorrect formating was messing up the article.

A report detailing the V-22's design and operational flaws, including the grave and fatal consequences that could ensue if the V-22 Osprey is deployed, titled "V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker," has been recently published < ref name="V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker" > (spaces added to show text in ref)

In addition to the missing "/" in the ref, there is no cite info other than a name. I did find the following link in a previous edit:Center for Defense Information Upon checking out this link, I find that the link to the "report" is actually a site selling the report (looked like a book to me). Unless something is actually quoted from this report, I don't believe it deserves mention in the article. There are already several sites listed in the "External links" section which are critical of the V-22; no need to link to a one which is just selling a report. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video

I removed this link from the article:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BhmNoCacUA MV-22 flight test video]

The Wikipedia Copyright Policy does not allow linking to material known to be infringing copyrights and YouTube is specifically mentioned in the restrictions on linking. It is unclear and unlikely that the video's creator has permission for use of all those clips and the music included. I want to stress I think a video of the osprey in action is a great addition to the article, however its important to follow the policy about how copyrighted material is associated with the wikipedia. Perhaps the group can come up with a solution on how to find and link material from the original copyright holders? - Davandron | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. Even if the video was all USG provided (and therefore OK) the audio track is most likely not authorized. But cool video of course. I'll check around and see if I can find some promotional material from when I worked with the V-22 team at Boeing; at least then it can be properly attributed fair use as promo stuff... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Operational Squadrons

Don't know if anyone wants to add it but there are now 3 full up and operational V-22 squadrons in the Marine Corps and 1 training squadron:

• VMM-162
• VMM-263
• VMM-266
• VMMT-204

VMM-266 just came online on March 23rd.--Looper5920 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CV-22 Images

Why do you keep making these images smaller? The detail shown at the level I intentionally put them at allows for detail not otherwise visible (i.e. the two in formation, you cannot now see the back one's windows at all. Nothing in Extended image syntax explicitly states that it MUST be in the THUMB format. If it must be, then all of the aircraft pages need to be redone since almost all use the Infobox Aircraft layout and those pictures are too large. I am reverting your changes accordingly. BQZip01 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By setting a fixed size, you aren't necessarily making them bigger, what you are actually doing is disabling the User Preferences feature. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with this. Under "My Preferences", you can set the size that thumbs are displayed. This is so that people can set the thumb display size to look best on whatever monitor they're viewing. If they're viewing on a high-res screen, you might very well be making the images look smaller to them. For folks who view on a very small screen, by fixing the images at a certain size, you can overpower the article. That's why WP:MOS says "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended". So, if you think the images need to look bigger when you view it, please don't fix the pixel size, adjust your user preferences. Thanks. Akradecki 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the max resolution available, so size is the issue here. While the picture size can be controlled by adjusting your preferences, the default is 180px. By increasing the size, it will increase the picture quality for almost everyone unless their settings are higher (most people don't adjust this setting). Please leave it as-is. BQZip01 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can't arbitrarily decide to ignore the Manual of Style, deliberately disable user preferences for everyone else, and force your view of how pictures should look on everyone else. Please respect the guidelines around here. The CV-22 article is a part of the Aircraft Project, and you need to respect the way we have standardized the articles, and the guidelines we follow. If you choose to deliberately contravene the MOS, that could be considered vandalism. I know you're fairly new around here, and I'd rather not go the vandalism warning route, instead, I'd rather see you become an active part of the project, so please respect the system that you're coming in to. Akradecki 04:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try a different tack here (I see you are on the WP:Ship Project too...): what gives you and the the "right" to arbitrarily decide that larger pictures in the info box are ok, but mine are not? Both the pot and the kettle are black, but I seem to be the only one with the ability to admit it. If no on else objects, I see no reason why more larger (and thereby more detailed) pictures can't be displayed. IMHO "should" in the MOS indicates a preferred course of action, but not the required course. If it is a requirement, as you so "eloquently" stated, then the MOS and the infobox standard should be altered accordingly. I can respect your opinion, but near as I can tell, it is being selectively applied (BTW, I'm part of the WP Aviation project too). I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong or concede that my edits may not be in the best interests of all wikipedians, but it seems that this is one person's opinion that I am "wrong" but his actions (that are the same) are "right." If anyone else could throw their 2¢ in here, I'd appreciate it. BQZip01 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, BQZ! Let me see if I can help on this a little. I was doing the same thing you are, and putting in the px-numbers in thumb pics for awhile too, so I understnad where you are coming from.

First, there is a difference between the thumb pics and the infobox pics. THe AIrcraft Infobox pic size is set in the template for the Infobox, and is not something we can change in an individual article. In addition, the pic there is sized to fit the box, and since it is the lead pic, it's natural that it be larger. As for ship infoboxes, they are different, but that box is alot larger, and they usually try to size the pic to fit also (usually 300px from what I have seen).

Second, I agree that the default 180px size on the thumbs settings is too small. However, that is what we have to work with at this time. I don't know if it's possible to get the default changed easily, or if that setting is built into the coding.

Third, in rare cases, I have used thumb sizings to make an individual pic larger or smaller. THere is one in the CH-53 article that is an awesome pic of a Stallion winching a rescue diver over water, but the pic is HUGE!!! It's worth keeping in the article, but it had to be sized so as not to overwhelm the text. I have also seen very small pics enlarged because they were the only pic in the article showing the aircraft in a particular situation, and sometimes even the only pic at all.

For the most part, if a person wants to see more details of a particular pic, all that is required is to click on the pic, and bring up the full version. We don't have to show all the details of the pic in the article for this reason. Yes, it can be a pain to have to do this all the time, but that is why personal preferences settings are available.

Sometimes the best solution in a situation like this is to resize the image file itself, if it is legal to alter the file (usually so with PD or GFDL licenses). That way the pic will be larger to begin with.

The first pic in question here in the V-22 article shows a different angle on the engines than the other pics. but that can be seen even in a small size. I don't think the larger size really adds anything that can't be seen in the other pics already. The same is true on the second pic with the 2 CV-22s. I found a much larger pic at [4] on site you gave. I guess you didn't not see the option to click for a larger pic. The best thing to do would be to replace the image in this case.

In general, it's not a good idea to use thumbs sizings (infoboxes are a different situation), except in extreme cases where no other solution, or an alternate pic, is available. This isn't the first time the issue has been brought up, and certainly won't be the last. - BillCJ 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, thanks for the input. I think my problem extends to the infobox. I agree that it needs a bigger picture than would normally be displayed, but I don't agree that all others shouldn't be. It seems that the template itself violates MOS and as a group they have chosen to do so. If so, then why can't I? It's not like the picture sizes I chose took up the entire screen (that would clearly be a wasteful use of space and counterproductive at the same time). I just enlarged them a few pixels in size so they were easier to see. I don't want all pictures bigger (as I would adjust my settings accordingly), just these so they show the aircraft better. Let me put it this way, why add a picture if you cannot enlarge it to show the details? BQZip01 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits; hopefully it didn't tak 5 minutes to fugure out ;) As to the infobox, I think the template is a different situation, so it's not "violating" the MOS as such; it's just a different sutuation. But fighting the size issue article by article is not the way to go either. I honestly think the default px size should be at least 250px (which is what I have my preferences set for), but as earlier, I don't know if that's a simple change or not.

One think to note about Wikipedia: Policies are not determined by consensus, but guidelines are. THe MOS is a guideline, but it is consensus. THe infobox was accepted by consensus, so if it does "violate" the MOS, it does so the right way. If you want to use a larger thumb size on a particular pic in a particular article, try to achieve a consensus on the article talk page first, or at least have a consensus accept your change after the fact. May seem silly overall, but that's how Wiki works.

I have uploaded the larger version of the 2 CV-22s pic to relace the original flie, but it doenst seem to have made much of a difference in the article. However, click on the pic itself, and the file in now much larger than what you had. I think this will solve your problem. That is what the thumb feature is for - to allow users to click on the pic for a larger version, but yet not having a large pic in the article that might overwhelm the text. - BillCJ 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Larger uploaded picts won't make a difference since wiki scales them back to the same size anyway. I placed the larger image because it shows more detail and doesn't overwhelm the text (please look at my version to see what I am talking about. If you agree that it is better, then we should consider keeping it, especially if no one else has a problem with it. BQZip01 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, all one needs to do is click on the image to get the larger version. Most editors consider this enough. Specifiying the size prevents users who have specified a different siz form using their preferences. I understand you would like to make the pics larger for new users, but the fact that the size is set to 180px is Wikipedia's decision. Registered users can change their size prefernces, and that's the way Wiki wants it. Do I totally agree? No, but thats the way it is. Yes, the 300px looks better, so I've changed my perferences to 300px. When I started using Wiki, I had a different screen resolution, so the 250px was a bit bigger. I'm using a smaller one now, but had't thought to change my settings. Thanks for helping to remind me.

As to changing the setting on these two pics, I don't think it should be done. With Akredeki's opposition, you don't have a consensus here, but you might in the future. If there is a consensus to include the sizing, I won't change it back, and my experience with Akredeki is that he won't either. - BillCJ 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as stand-alone images go (I.e. those that are not in an infobox) I agree that the best practice is to NOT set a pixel size. We should let the user's own preference settings determine the size of the image. If someone is afraid that some important detail won't be seen, it is possible to upload a second image titled "Detail of X" that zooms in just on the particular detail. Johntex\^talk 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You (BQZip01, that is) seem to have little sensitivity for folks who don't view this on anything but high res screens. Keep in mind, there's a lot of viewers who aren't in the U.S., and who don't have the latest monitors. Try reading it on an 800 px screen sometime (I sometimes, given my location, have to edit on such a screen), and after the nave bar on the left side of the screen eats its pixels, if you have a 300 px wide image, it makes the article look terrible. That's the whole point of having user preferences, so people with varying screens can make it work for them. Remember, as an editor, you are essentially supposed to be thinking of our customers, not yourself. I think it's amazingly selfish for you to deliberately disable the user preferences of everyone who views this article just so that the pictures will look good to you on your screen. We have a manual of style for a reason, and unless you have a really compelling reason to break the rules, please respect them. Akradecki 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the bicycle shed should be chartreuse! ericg ✈ 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Which helps us in what way to decide the issue? Johntex\^talk 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Ericg's comment
2. I have neither posted, commented, nor reverted for 2 days, so I believe your "slap in the face" attitude is way out of line. Johntex, BillCJ, and others have had long discussions with me and we have almost always reached an amicable agreement. Your personal attacks are inexcusable.
3. You have no idea what I was thinking, so insinuating that I am not thinking of others and accusing me of being selfish is way out of line IMHO. If you read my above posts, you'll notice I never once refered to myself as the reason I made the pictures bigger (I did respond to your assertion that "If they're viewing on a high-res screen, you might very well be making the images look smaller to them," by stating that I already have a high resolution screen and tried to point out that your argument, as stated, made no sense (180 pixels on a high-res screen is smaller that that on a low-res screen, but both show the same level of detail). The only way images would look smaller is if someone increased their default size beyond that which I had. Since the maximum on thumb is 300px, My edits would only marginally decrease the image sizes (easily less than 50%), but would still show the intended level of detail. As for an 800px screen, none of my image thumbs would take up much more than ¼ of the screen; 180px images take up nearly that already.
4. Contrary to your assertion, "you...deliberately disable[d] the user preferences of everyone who views this article just so that the pictures will look good to you on your screen," I "disabled" nothing. I altered how two images look. I did not go into your computer, vandalize it, and change all your settings. I also was not thinking of myself, but how the aircraft would be portrayed and how the images did not contribute enough to the article. I sought to improve the article for everyone, not just me.
5. As for "...unless you have a really compelling reason to break the rules, please respect them," I thought I had a valid reason (lack of detail at the default resolution). I stated above that I was willing to concede I might be in the wrong and was willing to concede to majority opinion. Second of all these are not rules, but guidelines (ones you and your buddies have opted to countermand). If they are rules, then all images in the aircraft infoboxes need to be changed right now. If they are rules, then why have the ability to change the sizes at all? You have to admit, there are either valid reasons to adjust image size or it is a rule that the Aviation Project has broken and must be reverted. As I stated before, I am willing to concede that my edits aren't acceptable.

In summary, you don't know my thoughts or motivation. Insinuating there is a right and wrong way to do images and that you are "right" and I am so very, very wrong is BS. There is consensus (like on the aircraft infobox) and non-consensus. Short version: Stop publicly insulting me and back off! BQZip01 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you already seem to have more than enough people on your side of the issue. Rubbing my nose in it is really petty. BQZip01 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back from vacation, and see that this is essentially settled, but I did want to tuck a comment in here and respond to BZQip01 above. I apologize if you think I was rubbing your nose in things or being petty. That was not my intention. You're right, I have no idea what you were thinking, I only can see what you were doing, and what you were doing was repeatedly inserting sizing when asked not to, contrary to MOS and WP:Consensus, which says if your change gets reverted, take it to the talk page, don't keep pushing it back in. That insistence rather than discussion on the matter, as well as your comment about your hi-res screen, made it appear (whether you intended to or not) that you had no clue nor care about how you were making the article appear to those of us who view it on a low-res, small screen. I did not intend to attack you personally, but I did want to address the lack of sensitivity that you demonstrated in your edits. I'll refrain from reponding to some of the specific points because, as I said, the issue seems to be settled. Again, if I offended on a personal level, I'm sorry. Oh, and Eric, I'm leaning towards mauve.... Akradecki 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'd see that my comment centers around the fact that a discussion about image sizes is the longest on the entire V-22 talk page. You could all benefit by redirecting your energies to actual article content rather than bickering about whether an image should be 250 or 300 pixels wide. Just let the Wikipedia engine do the sizing and readers do the clicking, and spend more time writing content. ericg ✈ 06:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Eric, Just let the Wikipedia engine do the sizing and readers do the clicking . . . implies that we don't put sizing in the image coding. That happens to be what the argument is about - whether or not to put size restriction in the coding. I don't know about the others, but I spend far more time deleting vandalism and cruft than I do arguing, and frankly I'd take more arguing any day! And if the result of this discussion is that all editors involved have a better understanding of sizing and how to use it, then it's not just a pointless argument, because the core issue is alot larger than just this article. And please, Eric, I've seen you argue over what I thought were "bicycle shed" issues before too. So while I appreciate your intent in mentioning that here, sometimes one editor's bicycle shed is actully significant to others. - BillCJ 06:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ - if this issue takes us a little longer to resolve than other issues, so be it. I see nothing helpful in criticizing fellow editors for thoroughly discussing the topic. I think that Ericg is being very presumptuous and that he should "mind his own knitting". If he has better things to do than discuss this "bicycle shed" then by all means he should get to them and stop cluttering up the talk page with admonishments of others. Johntex\^talk 06:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with thoroughly discussing a topic; there's plenty wrong with thoroughly duplicating a topic already thoroughly discussed. And Bill, guilty as charged, but I've tried to refocus my wikiefforts lately in an attempt to drop out of the bureaucracy as much as possible. John, in the time it took you to write that response, I revised four templates, totally changed their implementation, and modified their use in about 20 articles. ericg ✈ 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming I did nothing else in that time eh? No phone calls or bathroom breaks? No making a pot of coffee? No checking a reference or just reading an article? I'm perfectly happy with the number of edits I've made today and whether they were useful or not. If you want to believe you are spending your time more productively, then again I ask why you bother to enter into the discussion?

Those links you gave are great but none of them are to a conversation about this page. BQZ is right about several things. One of them is that if the style guide can NEVER be over-ridden then it would be worded more strongly. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether the style guide should be over-ridden here or not. Johntex\^talk 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01 - I agree with your above concerns also. No one should try to read your mind. I think you've been very reasonable and I appreciate both your motivations and your willingness to discuss the issue. Johntex\^talk 06:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, you are right - I have noticed you staying out of these things of late, so sorry for bringing up the ancient past. Thanks for the link to the previous discussions, and I'll try to remember where it is the next time the subject comes up, so we can avoid long discussions like this one again! - BillCJ 06:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ericg, no idea why this is such a problem with you. While I think your insight has value, being critical of us for clarifying an issue is out of line. Unfortunately, I (and everyone else) had no idea that the subject had been discussed before. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, but I think that my opinions are as valid as the next person's. They might be overridden by consensus, but I think that my point still stands as valid.

On top of that, we can make this thread as long as we want; to quote my 9th grade teacher's philosophy on writing papers, "Like a girl's skirt: make it long enough to cover the subject and short enough to keep it interesting." Over time, I have come to realize that sometimes a discussion needs to be long in order to cover every angle. I have written articles for respected magazines which the base editor looked at and said, "that's too long." When I asked him to take it to his boss, he did and his boss told him it discussed every aspect and to make the article fit, even if it meant cutting other articles. This clarification means I won't be going and making changes at many other pages and wasting my time when it is clear now that changing displayed pictures' sizes is not something the wikipedia community wants. BQZip01 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Limitations section

I have removed the following section as non-notable:

Because of the extreme downdraft of the propellers, Marines cannot rappel out the side doors as in the MH-60 series helicopters. Moreover, the engines would block the firing arc of side-mounted machine guns and so none can be fitted in these positions. As in the CH-47 and CH-53 series helicopters, Marines will use the rear ramp to exit and use the extended ramp to mount a machine gun firing out the rear. A chin-mounted turret was initially proposed, but experience gained during Operation Enduring Freedom and the high cost of integration led to the adoption of the ramp mounted M240 machine gun solution.

I believe it is really a non-issue for several reasons:

1. Marines don't use H-60s for combat missions
2. H-60s don't have rear ramps (or rear exits of any kind)
3. CH-47s and CH-53s also use the rear ramps to offload troops per the section itself, despite the fact they don't have wingtip engines and associated problems.
4. V-22s were not used in Operation Enduring Freedom, so how can the decision to not use a chin turret in favor of a ramp gun have anything to do with the V-22 itself? Most likely the experiance is related to helicopters with rear ramps in general, and not just tilt-rotors.

I understand this is all sourced, but it seems to fall in the same category as much of the V-22's criticisms: Highly critical of things that are not really unique to the V-22, and stemming from a subjective dislike of the V-22 for reasons other than objective facts.

Please discuss here and achieve a consensus to re-add before reverting. Thanks. - BillCJ 07:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I think the point made with regards to Marines cannot rappel out the side doors as in the MH-60 series helicopters is that the primary user of the MV-22 are Marines and they cannot use it like a H-60. Marines don't use H-60s for combat missions Spec Ops does: [[5]] and many variations are used in Naval Operations. I would be VERY surprised that Marines aren't on at least some of them.

"CH-47s and CH-53s also use the rear ramps to offload troops per the section itself, despite the fact they don't have wingtip engines and associated problems" I think the person who wrote this is trying to point out the similarities, not the differences.

Never mentioned using a H-60 rear ramp.

"A chin-mounted turret was initially proposed..." states mere experience, not the airframe. Perhaps it should be more specific "Experiences in other airframes led to the decision..."

I think we should tweak and keep it in. BQZip01 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. I'll review the sources, and see if I can tweak it to be a little more objective. Still, it doesn't need to be under a main heading. I was in the process of moving it to a sub-heading, when I decided to just take it out.

My point on the H-60 not having a rear ramp is that it's an unfair comparision: the H-60s have to use the side doors; it's not an option for them. Anyway, we'll see what we can come up with. THanks for your observations. - BillCJ 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah comparing it to a -60 is unfair since the configuration is not even close to similar. It would be like comparing the lifting capabilities of the C-130 to that of a 747: completely different machines with different design specifications and missions (even though both are fixed-wing aircraft). BQZip01 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Number built?

How many have been built? It seems very low, and maybe it is worthwhile to follow the operational history of notable individual aircraft even? I get the impression that there may be as few V-22 as there are B-2?! It is very confusing, because I remember seeing it time and again over the years and it seemed like one of those gigantic late Cold War programs? Dysmorodrepanis 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Osprey in SoF2

This didn't get any response at all when originally posted (which I suppose might be telling me something) but just in case it simply wasn't noticed under the previous heading, I'm reposting it in its own section here. Some of the wording is in response to Mmx1's comment above.
Recognizing the history of cruft in the Pop Culture section, I'm soliciting comment on the significance of the Osprey's role in Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix. The Osprey is SoF2's final boss (in addition to its role as a level boss during a rooftop battle midway through the game), where it presents a significant and final obstacle to the player, as opposed to simply appearing in a scripted cinematic sequence as in other previously mentioned video game titles. In the interest of complete disclosure (or foot-shooting), aside from featuring as the primary antagonist in the mid-game and final battles, the Osprey does not have an otherwise persistent presence in the game. I would suggest that it is almost certainly more central to SoF2's plot than the Ospreys in Transformers, but I understand that reference is significant because it utilized two of the Air Force's three existing V-22s. -ReverendTed 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I meant to reaspond earlier, but with over 1500 pages on my watchlist, it's easy to forget amid all the other activity. Games, for the most part, aren't notable. I know it's hard to accept, but they aren't. Notability means the apprearance has an enduring effect that goes beyond just the medium, and has an effect on the culture beyond just the game, or is atherwise remarkable for some reason, such as the Transformers movie appearance. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A perfectly reasonable argument - only a handful of video games can be claimed to have had the cultural impact of a movie such as the typical "Top Gun" example, and none of those feature the Osprey as prominently as Top Gun's F-14. (This might just as well be an argument against the current Hammerheads reference, though.) I'd definitely consider this the Osprey's most significant appearance in a video game to date, but it just so happens there's a rubbish heap of an article I can toss this reference on. I noticed that some helicopter articles link to that page, either by citing it as the "Main Article" for the Pop Culture section as with the Huey, or under "See Also" as with the Mi-24 HIND. It might be worth linking, unless you'd be worried that a pure list article like that could be destined for deletion in the near future. -ReverendTed 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm absolutely certain that page will be nominated for deletion sometime soon. There are a bunch of editors who think it's their dutie to rid Wikipedia of such "unencyclopedic lists", and they'll find it soon enough. Meanwhile, it keeps the regular articles clear, and that's fine with me. - BillCJ 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By same token as disregarding the SoF2 reference, I don't see how Hammerheads passes the "major cultural appearances" criteria stated in the section's comments. -;ReverendTed 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a point. If you want to challenge it, remove it, and require anyone re-adding it to porvide the necessarty sources. I'll back you on not putting it in till then. To be honest, I'm not quite as strict on book appearences as on games becuase books are less prone to being added by the dozen! That said, I have removed books in aritlces (can't say whether one was in this article - bad memory!) that I did feel were non-notable. I've either read Hammerhead, or one similar by the same author, and the V-22 played a significant role in the one I read. - BillCJ 03:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but the Osprey is on the cover of the book. If I really wanted to seriously challenge its inclusion, I'd probably take the time to look up sales figures for SoF2 instead. (So far I've had difficulty locating anything concrete.) -ReverendTed 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It has finally happened! I promise I had nothing to do with it nominated. - BillCJ 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dale Brown, Hammerheads reference

Since I do not have the book, and the article provides no justification, could someone please explain the significance of the Osprey in the book? --Eyrian 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the statement in question:

• The V-22 Osprey plays a major role as an anti-smuggling aircraft in the 1990 novel Hammerheads by Dale Brown.

The fact tag is there for the major role part since you missed that point. -Fnlayson 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is tagged with a "citation needed" tag doesn't mean that it it's protected from being removed as uncited. I strongly doubt the importance of the Osprey in the book, and WP:V is quite clear that the burden of proof is on those that add material. --Eyrian 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's been in the article for some time. Reasonable info should get a chance to get that cite needed also. A bot will date the fact tags then so old uncited material can be removed. That's how the system works. -Fnlayson 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's reasonable information. Again, burden of proof is on those that add material. --Eyrian 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read ONE of Dale Brown's books, and it did feature the V-22 in a major role, which was the main reason I bought it. I don't have the book anymore, and the title doesn't seem familiar. However, I will try to check around, and see what I can find out. Unless one believes something is blatanty false, a copyvio, or just absurd for some reason, it's usually OK to give it at least a week, usually 2, for the fact tags to work. Your reasons are important, but I don't believe they are reason enough to delete it immediately. That said, it may be past 2 weeks already! - BillCJ 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it only had a fact tag put on it today, but it's been there over 2 weeks otherwise. -Fnlayson 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked the summary at Dale Brown, and it is the same book. The V-22 is featured as the major aircraft of the Border Security Force, a conceptual, fictional precursor to Homeland Security. While that confirms what was in the text, it's not citable, of course, and is OR. I also checked Amazon's listing, and the V-22 is on the cover. THe "professional" review doesn't mention the V-22 or it's role, so we'll need to do some further research.

Transformers

Just to let you know, the pro-Transformers crowd WILL be back - they are very persistent, especially with the movie coming out. THey have been giving us fits on the F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle pages for a while now. Just be ready for them! - BillCJ 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• See? Told ya! :)

THe Appleseed appearance is a fictional look alike, and cannot be included per WP:AIR/PC and MILHIST page content guidelines, and including it violates Original research Policy. - BillCJ 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references

Due to the recent editwar revolving around this section, I am now calling for a consensus to resolve whether the following two entries should appear in this section:

• A pair of V-22 Ospreys were featured in the 2007 Transformers motion picture, carrying a squad of United States Air Force Combat Controllers in the Middle East.
• In the 2004 animated motion picture Appleseed, a transport vehicle very similar in design to a V-22 Osprey shuttled a squad of paramilitary operatives to retrieve the main character in the beginning of the film.

• Support: I do not believe the two are particularly notable but I would accept the retention of the first item due to the fact that the editor has noted that the V-22 is "featured" which I presume to mean shown prominently in the film Transformers (2007). FWIW Bzuk 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
• Support: Transformers entry. The Appleseed appearance, no. It sounds like a look a like thing. All entries must be referenced to validate and to show notability. -Fnlayson 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (As if you couldn't guess...) I've seen Transformers. The ospreys are incidental at best. The F-22 is at least arguable (as the alternate form of a character that is seen for a few minutes), but the V-22 makes only brief cameos on the film. --Eyrian 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support the first one, Oppose the second. Regarding the first, the text has been changed, and what made the event significant has been lost, and if kept should be restored. At the time, there were only 3 active CV-22s, two of which were used for the filming, so for a usage/deployment aspect of the type, its participation in a civilian film project while still in flight test is something that should be noted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you cite that importance? --Eyrian 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support the first one, Oppose the second. See Akradecki's comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support the first one, Oppose the second. Appleseed is a fictional likeness, which is considered OR. I've seen the anime, and while it does resemble it, it is a minor appearance there. As the the Transformers appearance, I agree it's a minor role, notable only because of the actual use of real CV-22s. Perhapds we should put this in the text covering the USAF version, and leave out the section altogether. - BillCJ 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloated Incidents section

I have been cutting back superflous details from the " Minor" incidents section, and I hope to do the same to the rest of the "Incidents" section soon. It is not usual for an aircraft article to go into such deep detail about incidents, even major ones. I know that others have added such deltails in an attempt to "balance out" the article, but that is not the purpsoe of coverage of aircraft on Wikipedia.

We had a similar problem in the JAS 39 Gripen aritcle, as that aircraft attracts criticism that is very simialr to that of the V-22. Both aircraft have had what many consider to be more than the usual amount of incidents,a nd many groups are very critical of them. The solution on the Gripen page has been to spin odd the incidents and accidents to the List of Gripen crashes page. (Please note that that title is not the best, and will probably be chnged soon. (Note below.)

There are more than enough major and minor incidents - each with at least one good source, most with several - to create a decent page covering just the incidents and accidents. While I have not looked into it directly, one or two of the major incidents may even be worthy of their own articles. The members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force should be able to help one decide which, if any, of the major incidents are notable enough for their own page.

I'd highly recomend that an incidents page focus solely on the incidents and accidents, and not try to cover criticisms of the V-22 not directly related to the incidents themselves. THere are probably more than enough verifiable sources out there to create a separate article dealin with the criticims of the V-22. However, I can't guarantee that such an article would survive the AFD process, especially if it is not NPOV in it's treatment of the topic. It's the type of subject that will attract many "kooks" who simply want to bash the V-22 for whatever reason, and most of that type don't use verifiable sources, or write very well. - BillCJ 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Title has now been changed to Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen. LarRan 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)