Talk:Gyrodyne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Radical Changes

Some anonymous person keeps coming in and deleting half of the Gyrodyne article. I suspect it might be the same person using different IP addresses, but who knows?

Would contributors please Talk before doing really big changes? Some of the changes made have been contentious, to say the least, and while some lovely new material has been added, quite a lot of the old stuff was just removed without a discussion.

My feeling is this: if material is incorrect, the Wiki article should discuss why the material is incorrect. This is informative. To replace a chunk of definition with something along the lines of "The FAA are Wrong" is pretty unhelpful.

What do other contributors think?

n.b. It appears that three of the anonymous contributors have only made changes to this article, and a couple of other articles.

OrangUtanUK 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Sorry, guys, Graeme and Biblbroks both got in while I was doing a large edit. I hope my edit is agreeable to you, but if I have missed some bits out please yell so I know what to put back in. Not that I regard myself as the owner of the page or anything, just I feel I ought to correct any damage I've done. Sorry again.

OrangUtanUK 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I only made a little reformulation of two sentences. Your edit is a major improvement to that what I have tried to clarify. Biblbroks 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

trademark merge

theres not a lot to be said about the lone US trademark so I put the other article down for merging into here. GraemeLeggett 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Graeme refers to Gyrodyne Trademark, and I heartily agree with him that the article on the trademark should be merged here. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've done a bit recently to bring the Trademark stuff into the G&H article, and I was going to propose the same thing this week.

OrangUtanUK 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - It's been a long time since this was proposed, but it looks to me like it still ought to be done. - BillCJ 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I agree. I think OrangUtanUK started it, but never quite finished. The reason being the anonymous editor who kept injecting his POV based on his self-proclaimed extensive knowledge on the subject. The editor in question wants it to somehow maintain an integrity to the definition by Bennett that defies reality. --21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I agree. 192.31.106.34 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

structural changes

I'm not convinced about the changes to the structure of the article - all due respect to GraemeLeggett. We now have basically one long article with no subsections. I'd like to propose that we subdivide it in some form: perhaps --

• Basic Description
• History
• Current Development

OrangUtanUK 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, I was able to start the rearrangement but not finish. My thinking was

1. Intro paragraph to explain what a gyrodyne and a heliplane are
2. History - which would be subdivided into Bennett, the 1950/1960s efforts and then current development
3. Examples as a separate list for those who read the article but don't veer off part way through
4. links/see also as expected.

GraemeLeggett 10:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeh! That's nice. Well done, Graeme.

OrangUtanUK 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

merge in from Gyrodyne_Trademark

Hi all; I propose to go ahead and do the suggested merger, during the first weekend of November, unless anyone objects? OrangUtanUK 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

anonymous changes

Someone, apparently with some useful inside knowledge, keeps making changes to the article. They appear to have an agenda against "gyrodyne" in its modern usage, and often replace established text with strongly opinionated material. Frequently the material is misplaced or duplicated. This has been going on for some time now, and always such changes are made by an anonymous contributor, in clusters of 5 or more changes at a time. We set up the Gyrodyne_Trademark article as a playpen for this user, but they've come back to us.

I relish the opportunity to learn from all input, but it seems to me that the proper way to proceed would be to note that the modern usage exists, and to respect and build upon the effort of other contributors. Erroneous material could be placed in its correct context, and accompanied with a balanced discussion of the merits of each viewpoint. I hope other contributors agree.

Since the contributor in question is always anonymous, we are denied the opportunity of confronting them about their lack of etiquette, or simple poor academic practice. I would like to propose that if this continues, we should apply to have the page protected so that it can only be changed by logged-in users. I think this capability exists.

What do other contributors think? OrangUtanUK 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE

OrangUtanUK is obviously more concerned with ownership of the Gyrodyne page than its actual content. All of the facts in my contributions to the Gyrodyne page can be verified by referring to the included authoritative references.

I know this subject inside and out and do not need to discuss or have my contributions vetted by others. If you don't like my contributions, then replace them. I have no qualms in replacing the poorly written, incorrectly reasoned and presented material on this or other pages. Did some PRA "expert" write this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.93.72 (talk • contribs)

Actually, based on the contents of the page, I am pretty confused as to what a gyrodyne is compared to a compound gyroplane or a compound helicopter and even a compound gyrodyne. Strictly speaking, the patent definition of Bennett wasn't that difficult to gather, and neither is the FAA's definition. What messes the conversation up is all the compound definitions that attempt to clarify but only muddy the water. --Born2flie 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm... This person who has been editing the page and is now apparently responding to posts has just shows us a few words that would describe his or her personality, and they are as follows: Arrogant, Nerd, Ignorant. A phrase is also apparent... Let me see, ah yes: Not As Smart As He / She Erroneously Likes To Think. If you think you know something tell the original authors of this page before arrogantly changing it and then kicking and screaming when people correct you. TechnoRat 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gyrodynes and Heliplanes → Gyrodyne — Per the naming convention criteria for simplicity, being precise and preference for the singular. Born2flie 16:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

• Support - WP:NC prefers singular instances, which is why the Helicopter, Autogyro, and Rotorcraft articles are all singularly titled. Heliplane was previously only used for Air & Space Manufacturing's marketing for the 18A autogyro, and now solely used in reference to DARPA's research project. It should be included within the Gyrodyne article and Heliplane should redirect to the Gyrodyne article or to a specific article for the DARPA research project. --Born2flie 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - especially now that there's a DARPA aircraft being developed with the name "Heliplane" (article forthcoming) Akradecki 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Concur. - BillCJ 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Gyrodynes and Heliplanes to gyrodyne as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fairey Rotodyne.jpg

The image Image:Fairey Rotodyne.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Challis-heliplane

Two editors continue to insert this information. Both usernames indicate a direct connection. This is contrary to the behavioral guideline dealing with conflict of interest. The link included to the website is directly described under the guideline for external links as what not to link due to the self-promotion of the user's website. Even if the user's intent isn't to promote his product/design, the appearance is that is exactly the purpose when the user continually adds it back in after the conflict of interest has been pointed out. I assume the users are actually one user, and recommend that they join the discussion here to explain how their participation does not constitute a conflict of interest.

I will also lodge a further objection to the way the information is presented, as if the concept/design has progressed beyond a radio-controlled model. Mr. Challis' website mentions a UAV capable of autonomous takeoff and landing, but that isn't demonstrated or displayed on the website. The other designs mentioned in the Gyrodyne article are either previous aircraft prototypes or current proposed full-size prototypes. While Mr. Challis may be hopeful that his design will be considered for production, he Mr. Challis has not met the verifiability and reliable source guidelines necessary for self-published sources. --Born2flie (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I'm a little puzzled about the gyrodyne redirect. I can accept that "gyrodyne" is the correct term for such a vehicle - except that I've never seen it used before. "Compound helicopter" redirects here, and it essentially says that "compound helicopter" is just another word for gyrodyne... the origin of my confusion is that I've never seen aircraft like the Piasecki X-49 or Sikorsky X2 called anything other than compound helicopters, including on Wikipedia. Is the term gyrodyne in common usage? It sounds a little archaic, frankly, and the vehicles described on the page do not sound like compound helicopters. The description of a gyrodyne sounds to me like a more advanced type of autogyro than a true helicopter in portions of the article, but in others it describes a helicopter that uses separate engines for torque correction; I thought the secondary engines on compound helicopters were also used for additional propulsion. Atypicaloracle (talk)

The only thing that I see wrong about it is the part where article states that "the terms compound helicopter and compound gyroplane [are] frequently used to describe similar aircraft". It should provide much more precise definitions. On Wikipedia, it's ok for a redirect to point to a page even when it is not a synonym. In this case relation seems close enough. On the other side, also readers usually do not infer that a redirect is a synonym based solely on the fact that two, three, four terms are defined in a single article if their meaning are very close to each other (but, again, they need to see the definition of the term they are interested in!). The relevant help pages: WP:Merging, WP:Splitting, WP:DICT. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The word gyrodyne is the 'correct' aeronautical term for an aircraft of this type. The corresponding term for other, fixed-wing aircraft, is aerodyne.

A gyrodyne differs from an ordinary helicopter in that the rotor(s) are powered only at certain times during flight. The rest of the time a gyrodyne's rotor(s) autorotate, as in an autogyro. When the gyrodyne's rotors are powered it behaves like, and has the VTOL and hovering capabilities, of a normal helicopter. So it differs in important ways from both autogyros and helicopters - hence the differing term. The use of a separate forward propulsion or anti-torque method such as an additional propeller is not really what makes an aircraft necessarily a gyrodyne, it's that the rotor(s) are powered only at certain times. Unpowered rotors during forward flight allow for higher airspeeds, as the rotor is comparatively unloaded compared to that in a helicopter, so a gyrodyne has all the advantages of a helicopter, such as VTOL, and hovering, with the additional advantages (higher speed in forward flight) of an autogyro. The three Fairey aircraft all had this in common - Fairey Gyrodyne, Fairey Jet Gyrodyne, and Fairey Rotodyne.

The term 'compound helicopter' refers to helicopters with an additional propulsion method, e.g., an additional propeller for forward flight. In this case, the rotor(s) remain powered all the time, so they aren't 'proper' gyrodynes anyway. The aircraft mentioned, such as the Piasecki X-49 or Sikorsky X2, fall into this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The use of a propeller (or some other form of propulsion independent of the rotor) for anti-torque and thrust is fundamental to the definition of a gyrodyne. Read J.A.J. Bennett's paper on the subject: The Fairey Gyrodyne: Journal of the Helicopter Association of Great Britain, Vol.2, No.2, 1948, pp.22 - 30. Since Bennett invented and built the Gyrodyne his definition is the only one that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.112.54 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the opinion of all valid sources that contribute. Definitions of words can change over time, and the same word can have varying meaning in different disciplines or sometimes within a discipline. If the CAA or FAA have their own definitions they also have an authority. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gyrodyne/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Born2flie: Needs some pictures --22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Intermediate rotorcraft type to what?

The introduction states that the gyrodyne is an intermediate rotorcraft without defining what it is intermediate to. It is simply assumed the general reader will know. If one reads the patent quote in the History subsection in the article from where this expression was drawn, it is clear that the gyrodyne was envisioned as an intermediate rotorcraft type between the helicopter and autogyro types (and not between the helicopter and fixed wing aircraft). Here's that patent quote:

" a rotary wing aircraft intermediate in type, hereinafter referred to as "gyrodyne", between a rotaplane (with the rotor free for autorotation and an upward total axial flow through the rotor disc), on the one hand, and a pure helicopter (with the rotor driven, and a downward total axial flow through the rotor disc), on the other hand, that is with a mean axial flow through the rotor disc substantially zero at high forward speed "

Note where it says " between a rotaplane (with the rotor free for autorotation and an upward total axial flow through the rotor disc) is an exact technical description of an autogyro and therefore "rotaplane" is clearly a synonym here for "autogyro". The sentence in the second pararaph of the introduction should be modified to state unambigiously: "The gyrodyne was envisioned as an intermediate type of rotorcraft between the helicopter and the autogyro:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.15.95 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)