Wikipedia

Talk:Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma

(Redirected from Talk:Eurocopter AS332)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

Specifications

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reading this page, something jumped out at me as being "wrong" ....

I don't think that 7200 metres = 19750 feet, as given in the service ceiling. By a very rough calculation, 7200 metres must be more than 21600 feet, as 1 metre is more than 3 feet!

More precise calculations, using the conversion factor of "foot (International) ft ≡ 1/3 yd = 0.3048 m" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_factors, suggest that 19750 feet = 6020 metres, and 7200 metres = 23620 feet (rounding to the nearest 10 metres / 10 feet). Unfortunately I can't seem to find relevant figures on the manufacturers website for either the Super Puma or the Cougar to determine which is correct.

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/eurocopter/civil/super_puma.html http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/eurocopter/military/cougar.html

Figures given on a third party site here http://www.aircharter.co.uk/aircraft/super_puma.htm suggest 7200 metres is the correct figure, but is that enough of a source to change the page? My best efforts at searching the web found only that single reference that might help. I have found other pages that give various other values for "ceiling" that appear to be based on operating conditions, and in at least one case a page discusses both puma and super-puma / cougar and fails to differentiate when discussing ceiling whether the figure relates to the puma or the super-puma.

So, I'll leave it to someone else who has more subject knowledge than me to fix.

Denis McMahon DMcMPO11AAUK 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indonesian Operators

edit

I changed the Indonesian Operators from Civilian to Military since TNI-AU means Indonesian Air Force and Dispenerbal means Naval Aviation Corps.

Accident, 18. feb 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Stop adding the accident with the Bond helicopter EC-225, who ditched in the north sea, to this page. EC-225 and AS332 Superpuma are different aircraft! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.219.85 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

They are aircraft of the same series run by the same operator in the same function and region. This makes the two incidents related in some ways, though the causes are not yet known. Have added brief note to this effect to articles on both models.Pol098 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I've removed them both. The two types have separate articles, so there is no need to be redundant. Also, the AS332 crash has an article, which does mentione the EC225 incident, which is the proper place to do that. I'll add a link to that page on EC225. - BillCJ (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would say that an accident to an aircraft of the same series as the one which is the subject of an article (1 relationship) run by the same operator (2) in the same region (3) and function (4) in a period of a few weeks (5th relationship) is relevant to an article. Rather than argue, I'd suggest that anyone with an opinion whether a mention of the Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma crash should have a sentence in the Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma article and viceversa comment here. These were 2 crashes with loss of aircraft. Of major human and news importance, but less technical importance, is that the occupants of one tragically perished, the occupants of the later machine were saved by flotation bags. Pol098 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

BillCJ doing his own Style Sheet

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

BillCJ repeatedly reverts my attempts to get this page closer to the accepted Wikipedia style (a template inserts an error which needs to be fixed). Could someone please explain him that this is not his own page and he should change the style if he wants to change the style? Thanks. --91.55.206.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC).Reply

As a long-term regular editor, I realize the edit tools make mistakes, and the "style sheets" follow guidleines, they do not MAKE them or policy. Some pages don't follow style sheets, but that doesn't make them wrong. Please stop messing with things you do not understand. I've assumed good faith until now, but no longer. You will be warned for vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
So you admit that something is wrong with the page, still you want to stop me from fixing it? Wouldn't it make more sense to open up a discussion than to start personal attacks? --91.55.206.73 (talk)
Another attempt: The template "aircraft specifications" is obviously broken, leaving an additional newline. I removed the newline. Now please explain why this would be wrong. --91.55.206.73 (talk)
It is wrong because the section of the Manual of Style on section headings explicitly says (in the last bullet point):
"If there are no blank lines above the heading, one line should be added, for readability in the edit window." [emphasis mine]
Your continual removal of this blank line appears to be based on a misinterpretation of the Headings and sections section of the Manual of Style page on Layout, which states:
"Between sections, there should be only a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article."
But it is obvious from both the previous quotation and last sentence of this one that the instruction "there should only be a single blank line" is referring to the layout in the edit window and not that of the finally rendered page.
It is not at all obvious to me that the aircraft specification template is broken. The bug which produces the extra newline could well be in the rendering software rather than the template itself. But in any case, since your removal of the single blank line in the edit window is contrary to the style guidelines, I shall revert it. Please do not revert again without giving a more substantial reason than you have so far offered for doing so. Also, since you are apparently editing from a dynamic IP you may not have seen my note on the 3-revert rule on the talk page of User 91.55.206.73. If not, please do so.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
As it turns out, the problem is with the template. I have now managed to isolate the piece of code where the offending extra newline is being generated—which means that it should now also be fairly easy to fix. I have proposed one possible solution on the aircraft specification template talk page. It may need a little tweaking to avoid side-effects that I might have overlooked, but it shouldn't be long before the problem is completely solved.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have now amended the template and it appears to have fixed the problem.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Last edit of the flag of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority use of the AS332C (short fuselage, Turbomeca Makila 1A equipped) should be changed from the US flag to the Puerto Rico flag, I don't know how to do it. I served as Director of Flight Ops for PREPA from 2002-2006. If anyone can help, we who served at PREPA would appreciate it much since the chopper only carries the PR flag, even though it is registered with an N number. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.190.5 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

EH-96 Puma

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reading this page, something jumped out at me as being "wrong" .... I've come across a number of images on the 'Net showing what appears to be Super Pumas operating off US Navy ships (in the fleet replenishment role). Yet the US is not mentioned among the operators. Why? Allan Akbar (talk)


Private contractors are doing some replenishment ops with the Navy. My uncle is currently flying for such a company doing similiar missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.249.50 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Gearbox cracking problem

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

See http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/services/overhaul-and-repair/Eurocopter-Identifies-and-Reproduces-EC225-Gear-Bevel-Shaft-Cracking_79044.html for developments, relative to the accidents.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's to do with the EC 225 Super Puma, which is an entirely separate article to this one; which is the earlier 'AS332 Super Puma. They're not the same aircraft, despite having the same name, the AS332 being roughly 25 years older than the EC225! Kyteto (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma&oldid=1207147620"