Talk:Bell UH-1Y Venom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Venom?

Bill, I haven't even looked yet. Is it going to be called "Venom"? --Born2flie 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Was news to me to when I found this page last night. My first thought was to move it to "Bell UH-1Y". However, I Googled "UH-1Y Venom, and cam up with lots of hits. (Alot more than a similar search for "ARH-70 Araphaho" (sp) will bring up.) This site (Department of the Navy RDA) seems fairly official, being on a Dept. of Navy domain name. Check it out and see what you think.

I was suprised at how good this page actually is. It solves a problem I've been noticing, in that info on the UH-1Y is spread out among the Bell Huey articles (UH-1, 212, and 412). The only problem is, there are NO links to this page in those articles. I had planned to take care of that today, and still will if you see no problems keeping this page. - BillCJ 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't if you don't. This is right up that alley we were talking about with the AH-1, also. --Born2flie 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's done. - BillCJ 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Bell Helicopter publications/Posters etc.....it's called the SuperHuey, not the VENOM! Stevee617 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bell does not name US military aircraft, the DOD/USAF does, though that does not mena Bell cannot use it's own names internally and for export versions. This Department of the Navy RDA site clearly gives the name as "Venom". However, the final word on DOD names is the the DOD 4120.15-L Addendum. I've written Andreas at Designation-Systems.Net to ask him to check his sources on that document to see what names, if any, are listed for the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. Hopefully that can settle the issue, and if no name is assigned, then we'll move the page to Bell UH-1Y, and put Venom and SUperHuey in quotes. - BillCJ (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That could be Bell's commercial version of the UH-1Y. I did a search on Bell's web site for Super Huey and found 1 article about the Bell 412. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

CAL FIRE has ungraded UH-1Hs that are called "Super Hueys", which is what I believe the Bell article is referring to. Andreas responded to my inquiry, reminding me that the Popular names for the UH-1Y Venom and AH-1Z Viper are listed in the DOD 4120.15-L - Addendum of 2004. I have found several internet sites, such as Deagle.com, that refer to the UH-1Y as the "Super Huey", so I have no problem putting it in the Lead sentence, like we've done for the AH-1Z and "SuperCobra". - BillCJ (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the article was not clear to me. I'm fine with mentioning Super Huey, but don't think it should be bolded. The the AH-1Z is different situation as there was some uncertainty in the past whether it would keep the SuperCobra name or change to Viper. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should have the name changed to "UH-1Y Huey" Bell Helicopter was the originator of the Venom and Viper names when they were developing the upgrade aircraft and those incorrect names have made their way into various websites including a Navy website. No Marine Corps entity has ever used those names and on the Marine Corps Aviation website, both the UH-1N and UH-1Y are named the Huey and both the AH-1W and AH-1Z are named the Cobra. Link to UH-1 info: http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/uh1.htm Link to AH-1 info: http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ah1.htm All reference needs to be updated to Huey and Cobra vice the incorrect Venom and Viper. USMC UH-1 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Viper" and "Venom" names are in the official DOD MDS documents(DOD 4120.15-L - Addendum of 2004). If they have been removed in an update of that document, proof needs to be provided. A closely-related example is UH-1 Iroquois, even though that name is hardly ever used, it's still the official DOD name for the aircraft. - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For one, those fact sheets like like something a public affairs official cobbled together for the public to see, not any sort of official publication or internal use document. Secondly, both of them only really has the stats on the legacy airframes... the photos of the new aircraft seem to be tacked on as an afterthought. I would hardly call that proof positive that the Corps isn't calling them "venom" and "viper". bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this is a USMC article from 8/13/2009 that calls the UH-1Y the "Venom" in 4 places. Official or not, "Venom" is being used. In addition, this is a January 2009 story from MCAS Miramar that calls the AH-1Z the "Viper". Of course, the use the nickname "Zulu" throughout the rest of the article! Anyway, thses two articles contradict the claim above that "No Marine Corps entity has ever used those names", one even occuring 5 months before this statement was made! I'm not claiming these are "official Corps policy documents; I'm just showing that the names have been used in USMC web publications this year. - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger with UH-1N Twin Huey?

I've posted a UH-1N Twin Huey page to see what we could come up with, using content from the Bell 212 page. On further consideration, I think it would be better to have both the UH-1N and UH-1Y on the same page, as the program is basically an upgrade (the first 10 Ys will be re-built Ns). I'd prefer UH-1N/Y Twin Huey. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all the rest of the Venoms going to be new manufactures? It's not like the OH-58D where every aircraft is a remanufactured airframe of a previous OH-58A/C. Are there going to be significant airframe differences between the 10 remanufactured "prototypes" and the produced airframes? Just some questions and a thought. --Born2flie 08:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I already decided not to do it after talking with Alan. It's psted elsewhere, but I didn't update here. I also think will be able to find plenty of content for the UH-1N, as they've served in alot on militaries. With the UH-1Y nearing service entry, content there shouldn't be a problem either. THanks again. - BillCJ 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• That seemed like that'd be a good move. Either way is fine though. -Fnlayson 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the new engines, power train, tail, avionics and rotor systems make it a different helicopter entirely. Unlike the UH-1N that was essentially the military version of the Bell-212, the UH-1Y is not identical to the Bell-412. In fact, the only things that remained the same are the mission configuration equipment (seats, door guns, etc...), as the cabin itself remained the same. For all these reason, just as the 212 got it's own page apart from the single engine Huey models, it should not be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditvl (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Production status

A decision about starting full-rate production was expected last year according to Bell. But I can find no press releases or articles about OKing or delaying full production. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Image

The Commons page for the image indicates that it is Public Domain File:UH-1Y Venom.jpg. Is there a reason to think that this is incorrectly licenced? - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's from Vectorsite. Greg generally marks PD images as "PD" or "GVG / PD", and Greg credits "Bell Helicopter" under the image, not PD. Compare the PD images on the image source page, http://www.vectorsite.net/avhuey.html . I've seen that image in print also (possibly Frawley's Military 2002-03), so most likely it is a Bell image. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I searched for UH-1Y images at defenseimagery.mil or navy.mil and am not finding that image. Not a complete search but I'm not seeing any similar show-type images either. It looks like an image from an roll-out or maybe air show display. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill, if you are fairly certain of that then perhaps you should tag it on Commons, otherwise it will remain as tagged, PD. I found it on another language version of the Wikipedia article, which is why I added it here. It seems to have been widely used across other languages. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain now: It's credited to Bell on page 33 of Frawley, Gerard (2002). The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 2002-2003. Fyshwick, ACT, Australia: Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd. ISBN 1-875671-55-2. Looks like a roll-out image to me too, or possibly a mock-up. I can never find the correct tags on Commons, and I can't look right now either. - BilCat (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, with that ref you cited I can go to Commons and tag it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have nominated it for speedy deletion from Commons File:UH-1Y_Venom.jpg. Thanks for all your input on this. It is, of course, important that we don't have copyrighted images misrepresented as PD on Commons. Incidentally it is easy to nominate a Commons image for speedy deletion as a copyright violation - just tag it with {{copyvio|source or reason}}. No other action required - they are usually gone within a few hours. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been now deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of capabilities between UH-1Y and UH-60?

Should there be a section comparing the performance of the two aircraft since they perform similar functions for the same (Marine/Army) military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.59.152 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policies you would need to be able to cite a reference that actually compares these two aircraft. You can't take a ref that describes one and a ref that describes the other and make up your own comparison as that would be WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. So if you have such a ref that actually compares the two then such a section can be written! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They are fairly similar. For a detailed comparison it matters which UH-60 variant is compared to as the they have progressively improved with more powerful engine versions over the years. I think it better to just describe the UH-1Y and say what it can do. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, although they are both designated for the same role as medium/heavy utility helicopters, they are not similar. The Venom has changed the traditional PT-6T3 'twin-pack' engine configuration to the more common dual-engine design, and uses the same T700 engine family as the UH-60, but the rest of the helicopter is different (power train, flight controls, electrical system, etc...). A comparison would be in place, but it would only show the UH-60 supersedes the UH-1Y in every category (cabin volume, payload, etc...), except maybe in operating costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditvl (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Range seems inaccurate

Hi, the article states 130nm as the helicopter's range. This seems short as it means that it has only ~1 hour endurance at cruise speed. Since the Bell UH-1Y handbook ([1]) on page 55 states that the usable internal fuel capacity is 1443lt (3,170lb) and this amount should give it approx. 2:15 minutes fuel time (goes up to 3.3 hours with aux fuel tanks), I think that the 130nm refers to combat radius (as stated on p.59 of the handbook). Therefore I changed the range to 260nm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditvl (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, check the sources when in doubt. 130 nmi was changed to a combat radius field as stated in the Bell guide (ref. 8). Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Promo tone

This article is promotional and/or overly enthusiatsic in tone and should be flagged as not in encyclopedia style. 202.82.171.186 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• In which sections? -Fnlayson 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. - BillCJ 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was noticing the same thing, but it appears to have been untouched for seven years now. Anyone know the aircraft well enough to take a stab at improving the article? Bagheera (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you think it has been untouched that whole time? Text has trimmed and reworded multiple times. For example, the quoted text below was remove from the article a long time ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspect I was mis-reading some date stamps. Obviously, I was wrong on that point. Still strikes me as a bit Promo sounding, but that's why I made the comment here rather than taking a stab at editing the article. I don't know the aircraft well enough (source material, etc.) to really feel confident making it feel more encyclopedic. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've trimmed some uncited text that might seem promotional. I won't bother doing much more until some specifics are provided... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The end of paragraph five of the Development section sounds like something straight from a promotional pamphlet.

'The UH-1Y will have the power needed to maneuver aggressively and evasively. Ground forces commanders riding in the Venom will have all the radios and fire power they need and the range of the transport helicopters carrying their men.'

Could do with someone cleaning it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.23.20 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Long gone. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (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.naval-technology.com/projects/uh_1y/

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

• http://www.army-technology.com/Projects/uh1y-huey-helicopter

  Triggered by \barmy-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 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bell UH-1Y Venom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121003182837/http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=4972 to http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=4972

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC) - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Payload Improvements

In the development section the article lists a 125% increase in payload over the UH-1N but in the design section it lists the same stat but with 170% increase. Which is it? -Noha307 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bell sources list the 125% on the UH-1Y page and 170% in the pocket guide. Maybe 125% was the minimum goal for the project. Anyway, I combined the text and listed the lower 125%. -fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, payload increased from 4,500 lbs. to 6,660 lbs. -- a 48% increase (note non-fan-boy arithmetic). Percent is hard, huh? The links are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.210 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Or you're using the wrong figures. - BilCat (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the article, "Over the years new avionics and radios, in addition to modern door guns and safety upgrades, have greatly increased the UH-1N's empty weight. With a maximum speed of approximately 100 knots (190 km/h) and an inability to lift much more than its own crew, fuel and ammunition, the UH-1N, while useful, is limited in its utility." So obviously the empty weight in service had increased over the listed empty weight. So no, it's not "fan-boy arithmetic". This is why WP doesn't accept original research, but reports what the sources state. Granted, company information has to be taken with a grain of salt, as they are trying promote the new aircraft, but it's reasonable in this case to assume they're right. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• The 6,660 lb/4,500 lb ratio is 1.48 or 148%, which falls within the 125% to 170% listed above. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, arithmetic is hard. You don't understand the difference between "percent increase" and "percent of." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.210 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever. I listed a ratio, the latter. The UH-1N's useful load above may not be right. But if it is then the UH-1Y sources have stated a ratio instead of a percent increase (25% or 70% increase). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• This article certainly lives down to Wikipedia quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.210 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:No original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)