Talk:Helicopter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Uses?

There is much information here, but where are the uses and examples of uses? World Wars? Today? I find that very important but not easy to find.I would change it to a B class for not putting prime information first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TribalXxX (talk • contribs).

Article Rating

I just took a prelim look at this article. It is very under cited. It needs many more references and inline citations (just for beginners). I will look a little mor eindepth later. As of now, I feel that a B rating stands. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Chris, thanks. I will put it on my To Do list. Hope others will also! --23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese WWII Helicopter

The History Channel recently aired a show on Modern Marvels entiteled "Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII", which lists information regarding Japanese helicopters including an attack on a US submarine. If there is evidence for this, we should update the page accordingly. Here is the info:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=205656 In the 1930s, Japanese designers created a range of warplanes, culminating in the legendary Ki-43 Oscar and the A6M Zero. As the war turned against Japan, designers created the rocket-powered Shusui, the Kikka jet fighter, and the experimental R2Y Keiun. We also disclose frantic preparations to assemble a secret airforce of jet and rocket planes to counter an anticipated US invasion in1945, and chronicle post-war aviation and the birth of the Japanese rocket program in the 1950s and '60s.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.16.99 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

IIRC, it was a licence-produced U.S. autogyro, not a helo. Trekphiler 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Different Direction

Born2flie: I think this article attempts to explain things that belong in other articles. An article about helicopters should have a good enough overview of the History and then focus on Uses of helicopters, rather than how they work. That approach has already been attempted and ended up in a bunch of articles being split out. --23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created an example article with my perception of where this page should be going. It is located here. --Born2flie 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions? --Born2flie 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd put the rotor section down under helicopter configuration. Akradecki 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Born2flie 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Song by Bloc Party

Someone should put a link to the song by bloc party at the top of the page, I would if I could work out how to. Ian 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Try Helicopters in popular culture. --Born2flie 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The song isn't about helicopters, it's just called helicopter. You have to put Helicopter (song) to get to the song's entry, and if you just put helicopter you might assume there isn't an entry for the song. Ian 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The song is listed on the Helicopter (disambiguation) page. I've linked to the DAB page in lieu of the song page, as there are other items listed there. - BillCJ 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, very good. I'd forgotten about the dab page. Akradecki 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was the section was split into the article Helicopter deck. --Born2flie 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Landing on a ship

In my opinion, this whole section needs to not be a part of this article. It should be a part of a Naval aviation article or a Shipboard landing which might go into detail about all the other things related to landing aboard a ship deck. This is a general article about helicopters and while it might be okay to mention that one of the military uses of a helicopter is to land aboard ships for the purpose of transferring personnel and cargo, or to service and maintain the aircraft, a more detailed description detracts from the article's overview of the helicopter as a type of aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Born2flie (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Akradecki 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Support split. - BillCJ 03:42, 16 March 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.

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was the sections were replaced as proposed. --Born2flie 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Replace sections

I'd like to recommend replacing the section Generating lift and its subsections with the sections Helicopter configurations and Helicopter rotor system from the Talk:Helicopter/Example article. Discuss below.

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support

• Support - I think that there is too much redundancy and lack of organization to these sections and even the sections below. Replacing this one section with these two sections from the example article will serve to give a better focus to the article, better information and make the article a bit easier to read. But then, I'm partial because I wrote the Example article. --Born2flie 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Seems fine to me. - BillCJ 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Akradecki 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Place your vote here

Oppose

• Place your vote here

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.

First fully functional helicopter?

“ First fully functional helicopter was made by a Slovak inventor Ján Bahýľ in 1901, when he reached a height of 0.5 metre. In 1903 he reached 1.5 m, and on May 5, 1905 he reached 4 m and flew for over 1500 m with his petrol-engine helicopter. The last attempt was recorded by the International Airship Organisation.[1] ”

Svetovid inserted the preceding statements into the article as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Props to the inventor, but he basically invented the precursor to the R/C helicopter. "First fully functional helicopter" implies a lot and I don't find such a claim established by the source, or any of the other strangely, similarly worded references online. Anyone with a hardcover reference have something on this? --Born2flie 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted it to a state when there is information without any source at all? And I actually put a reference for Paul Cornu and updated the information. I reworded it.--Svetovid 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can find any number of sources that portray exactly what Paul Cornu did and what his machine was like, but all the sources for Ján Bahýľ come back with similarly worded dialogue. Nothing tells us anything about his "helicopter" with a petrol-engine that can seemingly "outperform" every true helicopter of that generation. How big was the wingspan? How much did it weigh? I can tell you this much, it didn't carry him. I can guarantee that much since it would take almost 15-20 more years to develop internal combustion engines with the power to lift a man. Show me a real reference that I can find in a book about helicopters that says that this man actually built the first fully functional helicopter and I will stop disputing it right now. I've pulled out D'Ascanio until we can better establish the claim to FAI records, and he has a legitimate claim to be mentioned in the history. We aren't talking about models, we're talking about full-sized, full-fledged man-carrying flying machines. --Born2flie 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

G.Apostolo regarding Breguet's Gyroplane No.1 flight in 1907, "But it was the first time a mechanical device had raised itself vertically from the ground with a man on board, using a rotary wing system, even if it could not be described as a free flight."

K.Munson regarding the same, "...the Gyroplane No.1...had to be steadied by a man stationed at the extremity of each of the four arms supporting the rotors. It cannot, therefore, take the credit for being the first helicopter to make a free flight, even though the ground helpers contributed nothing towards the lifting power of the rotors; but it was the first machine to raise itself, with a pilot, vertically off the ground by means of a rotating-wing system of lift."

It is also interesting that you edit Cornu's flight to be 0.3 m altitude when the reference you quoted says "about one foot (0.6 meter)" For the first flight, most sources do agree that only 0.3 meter/30 cm/0.30 meter was achieved, but later that day, almost 2 m was recorded. All with a man aboard the helicopter. How did Bahýľ know that his aircraft flew for 1500 m? He probably marked it off on the walk back from chasing after it. You also reworded the portion on Cornu to insinuate that the expert consensus (not the wikipedia editor consensus) was that Cornu didn't actually achieve what is known that he accomplished, namely the first manned free flight in a helicopter. --Born2flie 00:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a model. References in English are hard to find, I agree.--Svetovid 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Silent Helicopters?

I was just woundering if anybody has any information on silent helicopters or thier engines. I know that they are out there (ive even seen TV commercials for them), I just cant find any info on them.Gundam94 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about NOTAR? MD Helicopters has run some commercials in prime markets in the past. --Born2flie 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• That does sound like an advertising thing. Really, how silent is "silent"? It's all relative. -Fnlayson 22:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Noise is an issue with all helicopters, I'm pretty sure there are no truly 'silent' ones... The NOTAR system does greatly reduce noise, as does the fenestron system. For example, the RAH-66 Comanche is near silent until directly overhead. The majority of the noise comes from interaction between vortices caused by the tips of the rotor blades. Since in the fenestron the tail rotor is enclosed, and NOTAR has no tail rotor, the interaction is removed along with a large amount of the noise.

Thanks, Jonaboff_talk

00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Various edits

I restored the introduction from Equazcion's (Talk | contribs) edits. The introduction should encapsulate most of the pertinent facts of the article. Information can and should be repeated later and in more detail. I also fixed wikilinks to applicable articles. The article Aerial photography references both still and motion picture photography and is a more relevant and complete article for helicopters being used for photography. Law enforcement redirects to Police and briefly mentions police helicopters while Police aircraft discusses in more detail the use of helicopters for police work. "In fact" was used to link the explanation of the origins of the word helicopter directly to the sentence before it that describes how the helicopter derives its lift. I have edited that portion so the correlation should be a little clearer. --Born2flie 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Etymology explanation is commonplace in any article that defines an original word. "In fact" makes it sound like we're presenting an interesting tidbit of information that is only notable because of its relation to the preceding sentence, when really the derivation of the word is something that is expected to be included in an encyclopedia article.
• I shortened the list of uses. I made the uses explanation more generalized for the intro. The full specific list isn't necessary there. I added a link to the uses section.
• Also redid my copy edits of that paragraph. You didn't give any reason for reverting those.

Equazcion 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither did you. It was your personal preference to edit it, and it was my personal preference to edit it back. Kind of childish of a reason, isn't it? There was no problem with how the middle paragraph was written. You can argue the use of "in fact" in the introduction, but the entymology is more completely covered within the article itself (See History). You've edited the introduction as if it was a part of the general article at large. That's okay, it is a common problem I've seen on the Wiki. On this one article I had believed that we could finally begin meeting WP:TPA, but I guess not. And that's why Wikipedia fails. --Born2flie 10:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not childish. It's copy editing. Wikipedians are expected to copy edit, for no reason other than to improve wording and grammar. I stated my reason as copy editing. Copy edits aren't expected to come with individual reasoning for each edit. But if you feel the need to revert every edit, it would be nice to hear the reason you felt that was necessary, after the time one might've spent doing something he thought was an improvment.
• Etymology is generally placed in the intro. Check other articles. Word origins are always placed there right in the beginning, no "in fact" necessary.
• I'm sorry you think wikipedia has failed just because someone felt that your wording needed changing. I feel that it's succeeded. There's really no need to get adversarial.
• I reinserted the distinction between aerial and motion picture photography. The aerial article only mentions motion pictures in two words - "motion pictures." And aerial photogrpahy refers to one particular type of photo taken from the air - the bird's eye view - and helicopters are used for much more than that.

Try to be a little flexible. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the work of many, not one. I'm sorry I messed with your precious paragraph, but you really shouldn't go pasting your original paragraph right over all my edits. They couldn't all have been that bad. And to call it childish that I copy-edited your paragraph, well that's just... not right. I could call you childish for writing the paragraph to begin with then :) At least I compromised — I didn't replace the whole thing, just edited some parts, so some elements of the paragraph are yours, and some are mine. Let's share. K?

Equazcion 10:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit=your personal preference, since there was nothing wrong with how anything in the article was stated. There were no readability issues, you just preferred to see something written differently to suit your preference for how you felt it should be written. Again, childish isn't it? Oh, I know you won't accept that and will attempt to portray it as anything other than childish. It's okay, I can accept my reversion for what it was, copyeditting because I preferred the way that it was written before you edited it (i.e. childish). The fact that I had to revert your butchering to get to what was previously there is just a method to accomplish the goal. You can have the edits as you would like. I know the way Wikipedia works and we can either have an edit war and attempt to get support for our views, or I can choose not to waste time and energy and depart. Problem solved. --Born2flie 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a nice person. Well all I'll say is that it isn't up to you to say whether or not anything is wrong, and furthermore just because I feel it can be improved doesn't mean that I've classified anything as being "wrong" per se. And this childish business... I mean, if my edits are childish, then by that logic your insistence on the article remaining exactly "as-is" is also childish. And I actually think it is. You're missing the point of Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to change, evolve, not remain stagnant. I won't hold this against you though because it sounds like you're just in need of a vacation or something. Good luck with that, enjoy your grumpy solitude.

Just wanted to add some clarification. "Copyedit=personal preference," that may be true. The same as the original version being your personal preference. Wikipedia articles, I suppose, then have to end up being a composite or everyones' personal preferences, a compromise. I edited certain parts of your paragraph, leaving some of it. You reverted the entire paragraph so that it was entirely your version again, according to your preference. Guess which one of us showed more willingness to compromise. You speak of childishness — a child is someone who insists on having everything their way, or else they stomp around angrily, calling people names.

You won't win any mature adult awards any time soon, sir. Equazcion 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job — I just fixed a couple of small things:

• Advantages, being a noun, "come from" somewhere. They aren't "due to" something. For example, "The glass statue is due to the glass blower," is incorrect. Adjectives are due to something - "It was wet due to the rain". You could use "due to" in this case if you change "advantages" to its adjective form, "advantageous" — "Helicopters are advantageous due to their ...."
• A hover is by definition over a fixed point on the ground.
• Things "land in" or "land on," not "land to."

Equazcion 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, helicopters can land to a point, a location, an address, etc. just as they can take off from the same. They can even land at a location. Because they can hover, they don't have to land on a point, they can land to a hover, which they usually do before they land on an object. They can also hover over an area. Sometimes this is due to the skill of the pilot or sometimes it is according to the flight profile for the operation. Helicopters can hover from point A to point B. That is called hovering over a line. Technically, that would be a line segment, which is a series of points between two points on a plane (not an airplane, of course). A line also exists along the intersection of two planes, but two airplanes intersecting due to traveling on the same line is bad. But, it is specifically because the helicopter can hover over a point, as opposed to an area or a line, that it is used to accomplish many tasks that both the airplane and autogyro cannot perform. It is probably important to point that out to people.

Now, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

due to

prep. Because of.

Usage Note: Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain, but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition.

Compare with, As an aircraft, the primary advantages of the helicopter are due to the wings... If you'll notice, I included all the appropriate elements of grammar required, even for those experts who argue how due to should and should not be used. You, however, make an argument that seems to be unreferenced and flouts even the expert consensus for the most conservative use. In fact, your recommended usage doesn't even appear to make the discussion. --Born2flie 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're right about "due to". The use of "land to," however, you haven't adequately justified — you've said that a helicopter can land to a hover, but you haven't provided any evidence that this is correct usage. I did a google search for the phrase "land to a hover" and got zero results, and a search for "land to" in conjunction with either "hover" or "helicopter" yielded no such phrasing. But since you left that out of your most recent edit, and we shouldn't be ending a sentence with a preposition anyway, I suppose that's a moot point.

• Similarly, I searched for the phrase "hover over a line" with "helicopter", which yielded zero results, and then "hovering over a line," which yielded 3 results describing UFO sightings — none of which used the phrase in the manner you describe. So I've removed that from the sentence.

• I added "most" in front of "planes" in the phrases that describe things that planes can't do, because the truth is that some planes can take off and land vertically — VTOL planes like Harriers.

• I added to the phrase: "...due to its wings, which in this case are rotor blades..." because I found this statement to be confusing. When you say, "...[the] advantages are due to its wings, the rotor blades, ..." it sounds like "the rotor blades" is another item in a list of causes for the advantages. I think my addition clarifies the actual meaning.

Feel free to continue with all the adversarial comments and sarcasm. I've also never had to justify every single one of my copy edits before... other people just allow a gentle nonthreatening compromise to be reached. I think you're just insulted that I came and stomped on your turf. I don't think you really care that much about these words — you just don't want mine to be the ones settled on. There's nothing I can do about it but continue to deal with you while you "have fun" making things more difficult.

Equazcion 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've over-complicated my response. I simply don't find your edits to be improvements over what existed prior to your arrival at this article. I know you don't feel that way, but I also find that you really aren't concerned with what anyone else thinks.

I will remove the most qualification from in front of airplanes because the fact is that harriers are not used in those areas, despite any perceived capability for the purely military machine to operate in the same capacity as a helicopter or any aircraft that might do a similar mission as the helicopter. As for the confusing statement regarding the rotor blades, it could only be confusing if you hadn't been reading the rest of the article up to that point, as if you had just picked an arbitrary spot to begin reading an article rather than beginning at the beginning. It has already been stated that the rotor blades are the "wings" (i.e. the etymology that you had previously contested its treatment) so to redundantly state that its wings "which in this case are rotor blades" is simply, well...redundant. Oh, did I already say that? The difference between our two phrasings, I wasn't introducing it as something new, but rather as a reminder. Still, I am more than able to simplify it.

In my edit history, I pointed out that the definition for "hover" does not imply that it is over a point, yet you've decided to edit that out again. You seemed to make such a big case about hovering being implied to be over a point, it is surprising that all the basic geometry stuff I threw out there for you just went over your head (point, line, area). Still, if you want to find out if a helicopter can hover in a straight line—which would be absolutely incredulous to any helicopter pilot that you would have to "verify" such a thing—you can google for "hover taxi", which usually involves a helicopter hovering over a painted line on the ground (generally straight, except for turns) called a taxiway centerline. You'll get approximately 636,000 results. I can even point you to the FAR/AIM which has guidelines for Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots as to just what entails hover taxi versus air taxi versus just taxi.

Let's see, you also edited out "are not able to take off or land" to "would not have access." Given the two, "able to take off and land" is much more descriptive and specific than "would not have access." Airplanes can fly to, around, and over most isolated and congested areas, they simply just aren't capable of taking off and landing there. So having access really isn't the issue that prevents the airplanes from operating in those areas, unless we're going to require the reader to do the mental gymnastics to extract your intended meaning of an area to land and take off from your stated "would not have access." Why, you could just simply say, are not able to take off or land. Oh, wait, that's what I already had written.

Finally, you also edited in your direct upwards motion bullshit again, which was previously perfectly vertical. Not to be facetious, but I don't write with the assumption that I'm writing for people who have to have everything spelled out for them. Lift, as a basic aerodynamic force, is defined as working in the up direction. My children even understand that lift works opposite of gravity, since they ask me to "lift" them "up" and they know that they fall "down". There is no reason that this article has to talk down to people by excessively and redundantly explaining things. What's more, if they need to know what lift means and which direction it works in, it is already wikilinked in the very first paragraph. --Born2flie 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read most of this latest response, but the paragraph looks almost perfect now. Good job! I'm just proud to have been the one to make it happen ;) Equazcion 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm. No. 'Lift' is the force generated on the wing by its motion through the air. It can point downwards if the aircraft is upside down...WolfKeeper 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. "Upward" could be added before lift, but I don't think that's necessary. The "hover in one area for extended periods" part implies a normal orientation to me. -Fnlayson 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah that is a good point. Lift in this case isn't the general use form. In terms of aircraft, it can be pointed in any direction. My concern was more that it be clear that helicopters can take off in a purely upwards direction, but that seems apparent now with the added words, "without requiring the aircraft to move forward." Equazcion 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An airplane that is capable of flying upside down without stalling generates lift in an upward direction, less efficiently than it would if it was right-side up, or else it would accelerate downwards. In regards to the helicopter, if it were to orient the rotor perpendicular to horizontal, there would be no lifting effect, although the rotor blades can be said to still be generating "lift" as a pressure differential created by an object moving through a fluid. The same can be said for a helicopter's inverted flight, there is no longer a force opposing weight, therefore the aircraft becomes an artificially accelerated "rock", with the rotor propelling it downwards rather than "lifting" it. The quality and benefits of its self-induced acceleration towards the ground will simply become an academic discussion of the accident investigation board in short order unless the pilot acts to return the rotor system to a "lifting" orientation and prevent it from being torn up as the aircraft accelerates to terminal velocity.

The benefits and advantages of helicopters are not because the rotor blades produce a force named "lift" no matter which direction the rotor is directed, they are because the rotor blades rotating through the air generate that force without requiring forward motion. The misunderstanding seems to be that rotor blades can generate "lift" if they are oriented the same as a propeller or any other direction, but it is the entire rotor that lifts the helicopter vertically and allows it to descend under powered control in the same vertical direction. The lift described by vertical flight and hovering is the basic aerodynamic force and not the "lift" force of each rotor blade which contributes to it. Just when does this commercially-rated helicopter pilot, with thousands of hours, qualify to describe what the benefits of a helicopter are and how they are achieved? --Born2flie 08:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust your technical expertise, and you're probably the best person here to ask when we need to know how helicopters work. But this has to do with the best way to present the explanation to the lay person. It's more a writing issue than it is a helicopter issue.

If the concern is specifically to say that helicopters can take off in a perfectly upwards direction, and we've just shown that lift is not by definition necessarily in that perfectly upwards direction, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to add something like that in: such as "perfectly upwards" or "perfectly vertical." Lift being generated towards the ground is still lift, even if that wouldn't serve a purpose for helicopters. The same goes for a diagonal motion of up/forward, which the reader could think is what we mean, despite how smart your children are. Although as I said, I think the fact that you said the craft doesn't need to move forward is probably enough.

It's also questionable to refer to helicopters as VTOL aircraft, as generally that term is only used for fixed-wing aircraft. But it's not necessarily incorrect so I'll leave that up to you, being the resident expert. Equazcion 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a case of Wikipediopia. That is where a person doesn't really know anything other than what they've read in Wikipedia. Wikipediopia can only portray themselves as having knowledge from within Wikipedia where the knowledge is already bolstered by the "consensus" of Wikipedia. "Since the article on VTOL says that it applies to fixed-wing, then it must mean that VTOL is only used for fixed-wing aircraft." And by the same virtue, "Because the article on lift says that it isn't always in an upward direction, lift must not be an upward direction." Except when lift isn't in an upwards direction in reference to a rotor or to a propeller, it is called thrust. And thrust, when applied in an upwards direction, is lift. So, we have groups of people who don't really know anything except for what they read. Not surprising at all, I find life easily explained that way. Hey, maybe we can Google to see if lift is up or down. --Born2flie 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a case of an arrogant person. That is where a person makes completely unfounded assumptions, like presuming to know where a person got his claims from, simply because a certain source seems to match what he says. It's a shame you didn't think of the whole thrust thing for your first response, 'cause then all this might've been avoided, eh? ;) The VTOL isn't from Wikipedia. I do happen to know a thing or two about aircrafts myself, and in all the years in which I've considered it a hobby, I have never once come across the term VTOL describing helicopters. It also makes practical sense to me, since VTOL was coined to distinguish a class of fixed-wing aircraft; ie. to show a special ability that normally isn't attributed to airplanes. Whereas helicopters have that ability by definition already.

You shouldn't make assumptions. 'Cause when you do, you make an... well, you know the rest. Equazcion 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

VTOL is a description of a capability, not a class or category. Do a Google search (in English) for VTOL and tell me what the first link is. Here's an abbreviated look at what a real encyclopedia has to say. And, I never said I wasn't arrogant. --Born2flie 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to prove it. I already said I would leave it up to you. I was only explaining my reasoning, since you thought I had only read it off Wikipedia. And I'm glad you agree that you're arrogant. I hope you'll therefore be more careful about making unfounded assumptions in the future. Equazcion 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

“ I hope you'll therefore be more careful about making unfounded assumptions in the future. ”

But then I wouldn't be arrogant. I have other somewhat founded assumptions to make, but the rise out of that last one served well enough. Denying one criteria may confirm another, and so, one brackets the target with indirect fires until one hits the target or else the target presents itself as a direct fire opportunity. It is probable that you will not understand beyond the second sentence, but I'm really writing it for me, rather than for your benefit. :) --Born2flie 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you have the last word there, since it seems so important to you. Again though, excellent job on editing that paragraph you didn't want to edit. I'm glad I could motivate you to improve it. Equazcion 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6. Oh, it seems I have done quite a bit of motivating you to do your own writing (and this is just the last comment. There's more where that came from, I'm sure). And what we find is that what we see on this page didn't always look the same as how we find it. By the way, I'm still looking at "...a thing or two about aircrafts." I've watched it intently, because over the course of this discussion I have been led to a couple of conclusions that I could choose from; one, that you may not be a native English speaker/writer, which is bolstered by your arguments for grammar school rules applied against only slightly more sophisticated language and other, similar edits to earlier comments that sounded as if you were translating in your head as you typed, or two, that you were too busy rewriting the thought, in order to maintain an appearance, that you missed that typo. I will make no assumptions as to which one may be the truth, I simply share with all the source of these thoughts. --Born2flie 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm a native English speaker. I've lived in America all my life. My mother's actually a reading teacher! Go figure, right? The aircraft thing just isn't something everyone knows how to use correctly. You see it as obvious, no doubt due to your experience in the field. Even so, that's one tiny letter you're citing; hardly evidence of anything. Yeah I do tend to edit my comments a lot, it's a weakness. My initial responses are often more emotional than I would have liked, much like your final responses, only I see that as something shameful. So once I've let out my frustration I make the comment into something less infantile. Regardless, the fact remains that in the end I was a positive motivator for you, a fact for which I'm quite proud. You did a great job, and you should be proud of yourself too. PS. Good catch, adding in "the" where you missed it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude that this must mean you're not a native English speaker. Equazcion 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I kept waiting for the edit conflict as I went to post this one. And sometimes, your 5th and 6th responses seemed as emotional as the first. Still, it was nice that you could own up to the fact that it was all to prevent appearing more "infantile" than me (I win, but I was so pulling for a non-native English speaker). I'm glad you lost there, too. --Born2flie 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I'll let you have the last word there. Good luck with your next adventure. Edit: I just noticed the "I win" there. Hehe... Yes, you sure do win. Equazcion 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gyroplane Laboratoire

Saw the new edits. I had written this bit to insert. You may take what you like to amend what is currently in the article. I shall presently provide a reference for it.

The Bréguet-Dorand Gyroplane Laboratoire was finished in 1933. After many ground tests and an accident, it first took flight on 26 June 1935. Within a short time, the aircraft was setting records with pilot Maurice Claisse at the controls. On 14 December 1935, he set a record for closed-circuit flight with a 500 m diameter. The next year, on 26 September 1936, Claisse set a height record of 158 m. And, finally, on 24 November 1936, he set a flight duration record of one hour, two minutes and 5 seconds over a 44 km closed circuit at 44.7 km/h.

Munson, K. (1969). Helicopters and other rotorcraft since 1907. New York: Macmillan.

--Born2flie 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Oops

I had only intended to edit out the comma on my edit, so I marked it as a minor, but then copyedited the next paragraph. --Born2flie 07:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 Release

Hi there. Before I consider sending the article off on it's way, I have a question. What makes this article so important that it does belong in this release? Tails0600 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It describes a feat of technology that's been used prominently in a very diverse array of fields, arguably just as much as airplanes. Everyones' lives have improved in some way due to helicopters, from allowing people to obtain more accurate traffic reports to finding criminals to transporting patients in an emergency. The article not only describes these uses but also explains the intricate and incredible technology behind them, along with their history. I personally don't think there's any question about this article's importance.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question about importance, but, congratulations, this article will be in the 0.7 release! Tails0600 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

d'Ascanio

The Italian Engineer Corradino d'Ascanio built in 1930 a successful coaxial helicopter, which flew under good control. His relatively large machine had two, two-bladed, counterrotating rotors. As de la Cierva, he provided the blades with hinges that allowed for flapping and a feathering capability to change blade pitch. Control was achieved by using auxiliary wings or servo-tabs on the trailing edges of the blades, a concept that was later adopted by others, including Bleeker and Kaman. D'Ascanio designed these servo-tabs so that they could be deflected cyclically by a system of cables and pulleys, thereby cyclically changing the lift on the blade as it swept around the rotor disk. For vertical flight, the tabs on all the blades moved collectively to increase the rotor thrust. Three small propellers mounted to the airframe were used for additional pitch, roll, and yaw control. This machine held modest FAI speed and altitude records for the time, including altitude (57 ft, 17.4 m), duration (8 minutes 45 seconds) and distance flown (3,589 ft, 1,078 m).

I previously removed the above entry regarding the Italian d'Ascanio because it didn't have a reference and the stated achievements conflicted with the referenced achievements of Oemichen. I have since found more references[2][3][4] that suggest that d'Ascanio did set recognized FAI records but I have yet to see a reference from FAI that corroborates this information and at the very least corrects the discrepancies. --Born2flie 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at reentering this piece, rewritten, of course, into the article. Just looking for an accurate FAI reference. I'm also going to put in about Bréguet's Gyroplane Laboratoire. --Born2flie 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spell check

I realize this is trivial, but is it actually "medevaced"? I've also seen "medivac" &, commonly, "medivacked", to avoid "med i vayced" (which "medevaced" suggests...). Consensus? Trekphiler 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's a shortened form of medical evacuation. Medevac is defined on dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster with medivac as a variant. Either stick with medevac or spell out the phrase. -Fnlayson 06:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez, was I not clear? (Again?) The question was "medevaced" as v "medevacked". (BTW, I did know what it means... I've seen every episode of "MASH" oh, three or four times, for instance...) Trekphiler 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, do you always expect everyone to do the research for you? You've only been waiting for the answer since May. The American Heritage dictionary and Merriam Webster prefer for medevaced but allow for medivacked. The online only dictionary.com prefers medevacked. I prefer medevaced. --Born2flie 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you always this rude? I wasn't asking for a spelling for my own use. I use medivac & medivacked. What I was asking was, should I change it? And I didn't want to get into (another!) revert war over it. Trekphiler 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I've been doing research without any help from you for 30 years.)

Yes.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:55, 09/17/2007

Are you suggesting that your response to Fnlayson was less rude than my response to you? --Born2flie 09:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that clear. You listed it spelled with an E and an I. I missed the K/no K part. I should check on this article more often.. -Fnlayson 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest helicopter crashes

I know that list is not correct. For example, 38 soldiers were killed on 18 Aug 1971 in a helicopter crash near Pegnitz, Germany. [5] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-fueling?

How long can an ordinary news helicopter stay on station before needing to refuel? How many hours can such ordinary helicopters be operated before needing significant maintenance? -69.87.200.63 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Two to three hours of flight time is typical. Maintenance schedules are similar to those of fixed wing aircraft, e.g. 100 hour inspections, annual inspections, and complete overhauls at 2000 to 3000 hours depending on the model. Madhu 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

♠ Really, then why does a Black Hawk cost $6000/hr to fly and a Cessna about $20/hr?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Electric helicopter)

I propose to merge the content of Electric helicopter into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. In fact, it's rather unclear why "Electric helicopter" is a distinct concept from "Helicopter". All sourceable content (few sources are given) should be merger into here, maybe as one or two paragraphs.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I question whether there's even that much material. Looks like a sentence or two, at most. There's only one type even referred to, a UAV that the only reference is the mfr's website, no indication that it is an actively-deployed UAV by any military source. I really see little useful content here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify...I'm not opposing a merge, if meaningful content can be merged, I simply don't see much meaningful content beyond a reference to the one UAV, and I question whether that's actually a notable product. Looks like Electric helicopter really just needs to be deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did the merge. Revert it if you disagree. Anthony Appleyard 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Electric helicopter section merged to Radio-controlled helicopter article. There is very little information not already covered, and the unsourced advantages/disadvantages bit is added to talk page for editors of that article to consider. --Born2flie 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

History

User:Anthony Appleyard edited the History section so that each inventor has his own paragraph(s). My issue with that is that the section now reads like a grammar school paper on the history of helicopters. "In [date]...In [date]...In [date]...On [date]...On [date]...etc." I preferred it the way it was even though I know that it was in need of a rewrite halfway through the section. The current edit also downplays the Pescara/Oemichen tit for tat with setting records for helicopters. --Born2flie 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can wait a couple more days. Protracted periods between exchanges in discussions are good acceptable, I guess. --Born2flie 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The format with each invention in its own paragraph with the date at the beginning, is easler to look through for any one invention. This page is to show information, not for literary effect. Clarity of information is more important then "best literary style" and elegant variation and "varying the expression". Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

• Does "tit for tat" mean "retaliation" or similar (its usual meaning here in England), and thus a running competition between Pescara and Oemichen for height and/or speed and/or payload weight? I did not remove any text as far as I know as I split these paragraphs. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

• He also took out the title box, which you had added, and I had turned into an infobox, and have now restored. Going back the way it was in the text is fine with me. - BillCJ 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• About me losing the infobox: that was an editing blunder: sorry. Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem, we've all done things like that inadvertantly. - BillCJ 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appleyard, don't change the format of another editor's comments on the talk page just because you feel it will be easier for you to respond to the points in a point by point fashion. WP:BB applies to the article pages not Talk pages. In fact, the guideline is to not edit even your own comments except for grammar and spelling.

Tit for tat means they went back and forth, each trying to surpass the other; retaliation for the other's accomplishments, if you want to put it that way. Elegant variation seems to refer to attempting to use different terms for the same thing. I'm not sure how that applies to where you put the date, since there are only two or three acceptable ways of placing a date in Wikipedia, and I have used one of those ways with the proper formatting to allow the dates to display according to a user's preferences. If we're arguing clarity of information, you've actually removed the clarity of information by altering the literary style, my case in point continuing to be Oemichen and Pescara, where the reader must now read three or four separate paragraphs that are related thoughts and come to the conclusion for themselves the short timeline in which those events occurred. It also creates an odd appearance for the paragraph discussing Juan de la Cierva which does not start out with "In [year]" or "On [date]". Now, if some of those "paragraphs" had been more than a sentence or two long, the effect would not be as obvious in its repetitiveness. But many of them were tied to other dates to give an understanding of the close proximity or the sequence in time that the developments occurred.

Contrary to your assertion, the readability and literary style are as important as the information contained in the article. It isn't a database for people to simply catalog information. It is meant to be read, and a well written article becomes highly rated in this encyclopedia. I do not believe this article could be more than a B-Class with the History section written in the format you have it. --Born2flie 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Today's edits to the History section: What the hell, over! --Born2flie 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify that thought. Wikipedia:Guide to layout says

Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points...The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgement and of controlling the total length of the article.

All of the previous information was adequately contained in the History section, but there seems to be an understanding that somehow people should be able to access only the information they want (as if they come to this article specifically to look up a single inventor/invention and the date it was accomplished). Perhaps you should just build a table that includes all the dates and their importance and we can just dispose of all that prose that gets in the way of looking up information? --Born2flie 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

elix / helix

(moved from my talk page. --Born2flie 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

• Please note that, in a Greek word in the Greek alphabet, in standard ancient Greek, initial 'h' is represented by a rough breathing sign (like a very small raised 'c') and not by a letter. Anthony Appleyard 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The word is a transliteration of the greek alphabet and not a pronunciation aid. The word is spelled in the greek without a leading "h" and to place one there is inaccurate. You previously had no problem leaving the "h" off, and your edit summary that you know Greek is questionable in light of this diff. Are you suggesting that you now know Greek and are correcting your previous error? The greek word for "spirally", ελικοειδώς, appears to be the root word being discussed. If you disagree with the quoted source, which the text of the article, until now, has attempted to represent, then source it appropriately. However, your personal knowledge or current ongoing education in the greek language is considered OR. --Born2flie 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The rough breathing mark is not a pronounciation aid in that it is not optional in any way. It is accepted convention when transliterating Greek words to use an "h" to represent the mark. I have numourous print sources attesting to this, including Koine (Common, not Classical) Greek grammars (written in English) and English dictionaries that verify this. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, which Anthony has cited, is a well-accepted source on Koine Greek. I am trying to find some authoritative online sources to enable you to easily verify this yourself. - BillCJ 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See this link for the use of "h" in "helix". - BillCJ 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The word isn't helix. Helix is a derivative from the same root word as spiral. The word I've shared is a word for "spirally", which is the word that Anthony already corrected to from the cited source. Now, since the document I sourced the origin of the word from is an essay on the history of helicopters, I can only suggest that the originator of the word did not simply choose the greek heliko or helix as the dictionaries suggest. This is a historical argument, not an argument about the correct pronunciation of a word. Technically, Anthony's previous correction of the transliteration without a source is scholastically dishonest, since he does not know if the word he changed it to, originally, was the originator's intent. If you can find the originator's intent, sourced in a verifiable source, such as the one I have already referenced, I'd have less of a problem with your arguments. I wish I could sit and talk this out some more, but I have to go fly. --Born2flie 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do realize (sincerely) that you have a real tough job to do flying Elicopters in harm's way, and that rightly comes first. ANyway, I've looked at your source, http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/early_helicopters/HE1.htm , and it indeed does not have the breathing mark. Given that other sources do use the mark, or at least transliterate it with "h", isn't the better assumption that the author didn't know to use the mark, or at least the the transcriptionist left it off? My assumption on the latter would be that the original source used Greek letters for the word, and the copyist didn't realize the "h" should be added for Latin letters. (Sheer conjecjecture on my part, but an easy mistake most students of Koine Greek have made, and even more so if one hasn't studied it at all.) Wikipedia generally defaults to the greater number of sources, not to the singular source in oppostion - that's verifiability. Btw, Modern Greek does not use the "h" sound anymore (per the Wikipedia article on Greek language), and thus uses no breathing marks. - BillCJ 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are many examples of Ancient Greek words transliterated into English with 'h' for rough breathing (here, ` (grave accent) represents rough breathing): `εξ = hex = "6" (hexagon, hexapoda, hexane); `επτα = hepta = "7" (heptane); `Εκατομπυλος = Hecatompylos ("[having] 100 gates"); `υαινα = hyena; `υδωρ = hydōr (hydro-); `Εκατη = Hekate; etc. Anthony Appleyard 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a source for this article that says he used the two words, that were originally included in the article, to create the french word that became the english word, helicopter. It is a verifiable source. Show me a similar source that says that he used the "correctly" Latinized word you are arguing for (or even that he used hippopotamus) instead, and I'll be inclined to accept the changes. This isn't about what you know, it is about what can be established.

In a related source, that happens to appear to be the source of the majority of the history section of this article (minus Anthony's tinkerings and adjustments that appear to be adding information from helis.com), he describes d'Amecourt's creation as

...a word derived from the Greek adjective "elikoeioas" meaning spiral or winding and the noun "pteron" meaning feather or wing

— Leishman, J. Gordon. (2000). A History of Helicopter Flight.

And even Professor Leishman has sourced his "claims" --Born2flie 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is still a single source, not multiple sources. However, there is an email address for the good professor at http://www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman/helibook.html , near the bottom of the page. Though the porfessor is not a Greek scholar, but of aerodynamics, he still may be able to help clear this up. Perhaps we can contact him for further information. As to the word "elikoeioas", the text claims it's an "adjective". Apple, could you try to check the this word out? I'm interested to know if it's an actual adjective, or perhaps the genitive/ablative form of the noun (My Koine is rusty, can't rembember if adjectival for is ablative or genitive!) - BillCJ 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Professor is not the source referenced in the article, since before I began editing the article, very little was referenced. Of course, it was also before I checked for plagiarism, which is why the professor's page did not show up. --Born2flie 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• His "elikoeioas" looks like Greek `ελικοειδής heliko-eidēs = "resembling a spiral" or similar meaning, with the rough breathing ignored and lowercase delta misread or mis-typeset as lowercase omicron. Anthony Appleyard 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're using a transcription (heliko-eidēs), specifically, a Latinization of the Greek word, not a transliteration. Transcription is more concerned with pronunciation rather than an accurate representation of the word from one writing style to another. The rules for both are not the same. French, being one of the Latin-derived languages, would no doubt have an "h" at the beginning of the word. But that does not suggest that d'Amecourt was ignorant of the differences in the two languages and would place an "h" at the beginning of the transliterated greek word he described as being the source of his word. It is possible that the rules for transliteration have changed in a couple hundred years (-eioas vs -eidēs), but your understanding of the language (WP:OR) should drive you to find a verifiable source against the historicity of what is being said, not simply applying what you can find in a lexicon, since that simply confirms your OR and does not confirm or deny the historical fact being claimed and that has been sourced for inclusion in the Wikipedia. --Born2flie 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Born, you are basing everything you've said on one assumption: that the internet transcriptions of ONE SOURCE are correct, in contradiction with a number of accepted and printed sources on the Greek language. I don't think that passes the WP:RS test. I no doubt could find alot of sources on helicopters that would make claims on how helicopters function and fly that are erroneous, and using your first-hand knowledge, you would not accept those sources, because you KNOW they are wrong! This is tantamount the same thing - we have presented language sources, but you instantly dissmissed them because they disagree with ONE SOURCE. I could find more language sources, but what's the point? I think it's time to take this discussion to WP:AIR, and get a wider input on this. At this point, I don't think were going to make any more progress, and I think WP:AIR is a better solution than an RFC or RFA. - BillCJ 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, two sources; the U.S. Government site's essay, and the paper by Professor Leishman. I use my knowledge of helicopters to vet my sources, not find sources to establish my OR. The source that I had found says that the individual credited with creating the word (information found in more than two sources) had a phrase in mind when he coined it; "spiraling wing". He derived his word using the Greek words for that phrase. But simply speculating that the wrong Greek word was used in explaining this, and then including what you personally believe to be the correct answer is blatant OR. What you need is a source that has already done that research for you, and you don't have it. We know that it isn't a spiral wing, because the wings aren't spirals or helical. He chose it to describe the motion as they rise through the air, which is why it is a spiraling wing or feather. --Born2flie 07:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is a Greek verb helissō (root helik-) = "I whirl (something) round". But this is off-topic: this discussion started as "should the Greek word be transcribed into the Roman alphabet with a leading h-, or not?". Anthony Appleyard 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And, since you've disputed the word in the source, and I've disputed your subsequent changes without a historical source that your transcribed word is the correct one used by d'Amecourt, I've simply removed the reference to a Greek origin until such a time as you or I can sufficiently source a reference one way or the other. I'll be fine with a source that says that it should be your stance, but a lexicon isn't a historical source for d'Amecourt's choice of words. --Born2flie 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you want me to quote or refer to the whole body of scholarship on Ancient Greek pronunciation???
  1. The Greek root rough breathingelik- and its derivatives, is spelt starting with a rough breathing in all good scholarly sources.
  2. It is generally agreed among scholars of Ancient Greek that in Classical Greek times in the standard dialect of Ancient Greek (= Attic Greek), rough breathing was pronounced as [h].
  3. In scientific usage generally, when forming a name in Greek, the rough breathing is transcribed as "h".

  d'Amecourt may have been an expert on designing flying machines, but that does not make him an expert in Ancient Greek. Here are other blunders and solecisms perpetrated by scientists in making names in Greek:

  1. methyl (alcohol): μεθυ + `υλη = "wine-forest", but was intended as "wood(substance) - wine": wrong sort of wood, and wrong order.
  2. Eosipterus (pterosaur): "dawn/east wing": should have been "Eopterus".

Anthony Appleyard 10:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in my mind, the issue resides with d'Amecourt as a matter of history, not correct language usage. I'd prefer that you a. establish that d'Amecourt was using ancient or Koine Greek, b. that the rules of transliteration or transcription then agree with the ones you currently understand, and/or c. that the previously cited references do not accurately portray d'Amecourt's understanding of Greek, rather than asserting your own understanding of what you think he used or believe he should've used. Since it was d'Amecourt that coined the word, reportedly from Greek words, you have to establish which words he used. I will also be working to this end. --Born2flie 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Did d'Amecourt call it an "elicoptère" without H in his writings? Anthony Appleyard 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you have a source, you let me know. --Born2flie 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Dr. Leishman, the author of the other source I found for elikoieoas. His use of the word is directly sourced from the book by Liberatore (p.224). The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. Dr. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker after I described the dilemma. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:

It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.

"[O]ld epithet" does not necessarily indicate ancient Koine Greek. As it is, Appleyard has not established the historicity of his edits crediting d'Amecourt with using the words that he is editing into the article. --Born2flie 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Learned-origin words including helicopter were taken from Classical Greek, not from Koine Greek. Anthony Appleyard 06:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking Classical Greek, then all your diacritic (aspiration mark) arguments are moot. Since they didn't come into use until after the Classical Greek period, and not into authoritative use until well after their introduction and incorporation during the Hellenistic period and the formation of Koine Greek. Are you sure you know Greek, or do you just have access to a couple of books that you quickly read through to tell you what you want to know? I looked through the edit history on Koine Greek and Classical Greek, and I don't see you on there at all, so I'm assuming that you have no problems with those articles. They must be accurate according to your knowledge of the Greek language, right?

Modern editions of Ancient Greek texts are usually written with accents and breathing marks, interword spacing, modern punctuation, and sometimes mixed case, but these were all introduced later.

i.e. it is only through the interpolation of Koine Greek that the use of such mechanisms is transferred upon Classical Greek, which existed without them. --Born2flie 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Appleyard, I cannot help it if your attempts to garner consensus for your position have not exactly met with success. The consensus has been that since you cannot and I cannot produce the actual Greek words that d'Amecourt used in coining the word helicopter, to leave the Greek references out of the article. I've provided comments. Your knowledge of Greek seems to be fleeting. First, changing the referenced word to an unreferenced word. Second, changing the word to include an "h" three weeks later with the edit summary of "I know Greek" after I had reverted the "h". Thirdly, asserting that Classical Greek uses breathing marks, which I have pointed out is disputed here on Wikipedia in the article on Classical Greek. Lastly, reverting to the dictionary etymology without historical reference that "helix" is the word used by d'Amecourt.

You attempted to take the matter to mediation, but refuse to discuss the issue here and consider the possibility that words can exist that aren't contained in your reference material, a position easily accepted by the Greek colleague of Dr. Leishman, as noted above. Both your request for mediation and your RfC are avoiding discussing this topic which is, what word did d'Amecourt use?

It was suggested that I verify the references (centennialofflight.gov and Dr. Leishman's webpage) to make sure that the word was not a typo. I have done that, in good faith, and learned that the word (elikoieoas) appears in E.K. Liberatore's book Helicopters Before Helicopters (1998) on page 224. Mr. Liberatore has 31 pages of bibliography for his book, and as soon as I have access to a library once again, I'll be more than happy to verify that source of Dr. Leishman's. In the meantime, what are you doing to establish the historicity of "helix" as the origin for d'Amecourt coining the word? --Born2flie 07:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary sub-heading

For now, as stated in my edit summaries, I think it best we leave out any of the Greek info until Born's source is confirmed. Once it is confirmed one way or the other, then we can include both versions and sources, putting the dictionary etymologies in a footnote. So while I do agree that Apple's preferred sources are legitimate and wothry of inclusion, let's give Born's source time to check the originals. - BillCJ 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment about elix / helix in the etymology of the word "helicopter"

• Whether the Greek original of the "helic-" part of ther word "helicopter" was "helik-" or "elik-". The concensus of the evidence points to the 'h' being present. But User:Born2flie says that there was no 'h', because of one stray case when someone missed out the Greek rough breathing sign. I know Ancient Greek well and I have reference books about it. I tried mediation: see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Helicopter. Anthony Appleyard 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment. I know Ancient Greek relatively well and have a degree in Classical languages. The 'h' is undoubtedly correct. The root has a rough breathing which is normally transliterated with an 'h'. For sources I would cite the Middle Liddle mentioned above which lists many words beginning with helik (most noting that they share a root with the verb helisso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is really self-evident for anybody with a basic knowledge of Greek. Reminds me a bit of this. Helicopter is a regular compound form, coined according to the classical grammar of the language, consisting of helik-o-, the normal compound-building form of the word whose nominative singular is helix (ἕλιξ), with a rough breathing at the beginning, meaning 'spiral'; and pteron (πτερόν), meaning 'wing'. Incidentally, the initial h- in helix etymologically reflects an earlier w- (digamma), showing that hel- (< wel-) is ultimately related to Latin volvo ('turn') and English well. Source: Babiniotis, Lexiko tis neoellinikis glossas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the historicity of the spelling with the breathing, the h- sound was in fact originally written as a separate letter H in ancient Greek in its pre-classical orthography. Second, some dialects of Greek Ionic) started h-dropping and when they had lost the sound, they re-used the letter for something else (the vowel letter Eta). Third, the writing systems of these dialects was taken over by others (Attic) that still had the sound in pronunciation, leading to the need to invent a new graphical symbol for it. This was, at first, a half "H", which then developed into the diacritic symbol as we now know it. Fourth, h-dropping reached those dialects too, leaving them with a diacritic symbol that no longer corresponded to anything phonetic. But in classical Attic, the "h" was undoubtedly still there. This is all very basic and well known. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Historicity referring to how the word was historically formed by the person who coined the word, not the historicity of the Greek language. Thanks for misunderstanding the context of the discussion which lies directly above this RfC and the comments from the native Greek speaker with Greek expert friends back in his native land. --Born2flie 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And something else, the alleged word quoted above elikoieoas, is an obvious misspelling, the intended word that means spiral-like is helikoeidēs (ἑλικοειδής), where the second component is from eidos (εἴδος 'kind'). It is relatively easy to mistake the Greek letter delta for a Latin a or o, I suppose. -oieoas is just complete bullocks, it doesn't resemble any existing Greek word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More refs:

• Seebold, Elmar (1995), Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, Berlin, p. 369; quoting in turn:
• Cottez, Henri (1980), Dictionnaire des structures du vocabulaire savant,, Paris, p.181; and:
• Carstensen, P. and Busse, U. (1993), Anglizismen-Wörterbuch, Berlin, Vol 2, p. 640.

The scope of these works, both Cottez and Carstensen/Busse, makes it clear that they deal explicitly with issues relating to the structural sources of modern coinages.

Seebold's explanation (my translation from German) is: "[...] from French hélicoptère, which is a neoclassical formation from Greek hélix, -ikos 'vortex' (and other meanings) and Greek pterón 'flyer'."

HTH, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Codice Atlantico

I removed the reference to the Codice Atlantico (Codex Atlanticus) because Da Vinci did not write the codex. It was assembled from his notebooks by Pompeo Leoni.[6] Since the information was not germaine to the history of the helicopter, I didn't correct it, but instead cut it from the article. --Born2flie 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Linemen?

I know that helicopters are used to inspect lines and to transport linemen to repair and clean components on high voltage transmission lines, but does this section merit inclusion in an article about helicopters?:

Linemen

Main article: Lineman (occupation) § What they do

Electric power transmission companies are now using linemen in helicopters to perform repairs to high-voltage wires. The lineman, wearing a "hotsuit" with steel wires sewn into the lining, sitting on the outside of the helicopter, uses a special rod to connect himself and the helicopter to the still-energized line, in a process called "bonding on," the lineman energizes himself and the helicopter so that he can now work on the wire safely, in the same way a bird can perch on a high-tension line and not be electrocuted. The lineman is protected by his suit and the fact that he is bonded to and protected from the circuit in the same way as if he was inside a faraday cage.

---

• Opposed - I don't think this section talks about helicopters other than a mention that the lineman sits on the outside of one and bonds himself and the helicopter so he can do his job --Born2flie 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That doesn't sound like a major, common use now to me. Just add the main link under 'Other uses' and leave out the text. -Fnlayson 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• It seems reasonably noteworthy to me. Anthony Appleyard 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have requested a Peer Review for this article. The first reviewer had these comments:

• To start off, the intro is great. The rest that could use a little work, not much though.
• The history section is almost written like a list. Almost each paragraph starts with "In 19XX..." (in fact two paragraphs in a row start "In 1906..."). More variety is required.
• The Uses section needs an intro before jumping right into subsections.
• The Hazards section needs more info, not just links in a list.

So, we're looking at the History, Uses, and the Hazards section requiring some reworking. --Born2flie 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section looks awfully large.

Perhaps we should make a new article called History of helicopters, opinions? TheBlazikenMaster 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the History section is that large at this point. Perhaps it could be expanded more, but I don't really know. Perhaps we could look at the whole article, especially those areas with linked articles, and see if some sections could be trimmed. - BillCJ 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that large if it is written in prose. User:Anthony Appleyard made it more of a list because he felt it helped people find a specific date/inventor/event easier than a prose format (which is more fitting for an encyclopedic article). See discussion above. --Born2flie 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are for people to get information from, and to me, the best form for an encyclopedia is the clearest format to look for information in, even if that means a table instead of essay-type prose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Which totally ignores WP:MOS beyond the intent of WP:IGNORE. Care to show us an FA-Class article that has a History section laid out as you have unilaterally edited this one? --Born2flie (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments from the peer review, I'm for reconverting it to straight prose. I know the aritcle will never advance to FA-status, if even past B-class, with lists in sections that aren't normally listed. If Anthony doesn't like it, he's free to file arbitration against me this time. If you want to work on a prose version elsewhere (or have it all ready, I'll add the prose in place of the list so my involvement is clear, if you'd like. - BillCJ 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

See my Sandbox article. There are some recent additions to the namespace article, mostly model makers who may or may not have contributed to the body of aerodynamic knowledge about helicopters, and otherwise appear to have done little to further the development. So, those have not been added into the history on my sandbox page. --Born2flie 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yep it needs some subsections like that or something by time/years. -Fnlayson 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also taken care of in my Sandbox article, although I'd like to rename one. There is a text comment to indicate so. --Born2flie 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added some subsections in the article based on your sandbox article. It's a start. Adjust as needed. -Fnlayson 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe add another subsection label for "modern helicopters" or something like that and convert the lists back to paragraph form. -Fnlayson 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

External links.

What I don't understand is why can't we have an external link to a website about "how to become a helicopter pilot"? I mean, they are useful for many people looking for information about helicopters. And I know it's useful for people that wants to learn to fly a helicopter. So my question is why not? Surely there must be websites somewhere that tell a lot more than "HowTo". TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually, it is because such links are commercial in nature and violate the guideline for WP:EL. --Born2flie 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Born2flie. - BillCJ 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with this back and forth on AeroEngineer2008's external link? Does it break a link rule?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The deal is that it has been removed from the External links section for almost a year and continually gets edited back in. The site is primarily to showcase an individual's designs in aeronautics and it has been suspected that its continued inclusion in the articles it is linked from on Wikipedia is for self-promotion and violates WP:COI. When the COI concerns have been raised in the edit history, the editor(s) who insert the link appear to wait a period of time before attempting to reinsert the link without a justification for why the link contributes to the article. Simply because it has a tool that the editor thinks might be useful to someone, doesn't really meet the intent of WP:EL. Long story short, the site is a self-promotion site for Michael Duffy and his designs and the continued insistence in a link's inclusion in an article without justification for how it contributes to the article implies a conflict of interest. --Born2flie (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. A reading of the site shows that it is a promotional page for a piece of analytical software. We're not here to provide advertising for software. What the editor in question also doesn't seem to understand is that having a link here will not help his site gain prominence on search engines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious. I think these things should be mentioned here so that newcomers understand the context when future instances occur.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Born, Akradeki,

I suppose you are used to being spammed to death, so you are constantly on the defensive. I accept your decision to remove the link; I however, believe that 90% of what I C on wikipedia, including the Rotorcraft and Helicopter articles have promotion for companies and products all over them. My intent is not to promote and therefore withdraw my request for inclusion. I don't care about search engines, and page rank, I thought this would be helpful for others. I personally use wikipedia for tools and advice for design, so thought this would be helpful. --AeroEngineer2008 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Juan de la Cierva and the helicopter

Trekphiler tagged the statement, "In 1923, the rotorcraft that became the basis for the modern helicopter began to take shape, in the form of an autogyro." I have inserted "rotor" after "modern helicopter" to clarify. Focke had extensive experience with C.19 and C.30 autogyros prior to building the Fw 61 and the Fa 223, Flettner had designed and built the Fl 184 autogyro prior to designing the Fl 282 Kolibri, and it was Cierva's advances that inspired Breguet to return to rotorcraft and the helicopter after early disappointments. It is not intended to show the autogyro as ancestral, despite the fact that the helicopter has eclipsed the autogyro, but rather that that the helicopter owes the design of the rotor system that made it successful to Cierva's successful development of the autogyro. The two are inextricably linked through Cierva. --Born2flie 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing that. The simple addition of 'rotor' makes a big difference. -Fnlayson 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertical helo image

A helicopter tilting almost vertically close to Chalet du Nant-Borrat.

Alternative cropped image

I think this is a good image, but at thumb size the helicopter is too small and difficult to distinguish from the background. If the image was cropped more, say about half as wide as it is now with the helicopter centered it would be a fine image, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As a thumb, which is how the pic will appear and "participate" in this article, I don't think it is a good pic at all. Why is the pic being placed in the article? Is it being used to illustrate a point in the article, or is it just being placed into the article because it is of a helicopter and all helicopter pictures are "useful" for illustration? Editors should, by nature, be discriminatory towards what goes in an article. Even if someone thinks it is a neat picture, it has to have a purpose in the article and not just be included because someone thought it was neat. I didn't put half the pictures in, and I've trimmed more than a couple out, because they were in the article...just because. And "just because" isn't a good enough guideline or criterion. --Born2flie (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who uploaded this image and in fact added it into the article. The point with this picture is pretty obvious, it shows a helicopter tilting almost vertically and preparing to drop into the valley below - a great example of the versatility of the helicopter. What Fnlayson said is rightful to me but I disagree with Born2flie; in the section it was added (Helicopter#Controlling flight), the picture demonstrated something important, that is, helicopters are very versatile aircraft. I have cropped the image more and uploaded to Commons as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertical_helicopter_crop.JPG. If no arguments until tomorrow, I will add it. --85.220.49.145 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider that a weak argument, since what makes a helicopter versatile is not tilting vertically to drop into a valley. Now, you uploaded the image, so, of course, you feel that it belongs in the article. And you agree with Jeff that if it was cropped it could be included. Neither of these are a surprise. Again, not really what was being discussed in the Image choice and placement section of WP:Images. The article already has a picture with two helicopters doing acrobatic flying. Additionally, the helicopter in the image you intend to add isn't focused very well, and this becomes even more apparent when the full-size picture is viewed. Compared to the HAL Dhruv aerobatic picture, which, when viewed full-size, shows even greater detail because the focus is good. So, even if you meant "agility" instead of versatility, there is already a better quality picture in place to represent that. And one of the Dhruv helicopters even appears to be tilted even more vertically, almost perpendicular. --Born2flie (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

- One of those images (probably later) would be a better fit in the helicopter model article (not sure what type it is). Depending on the number and quality of images in that article already of course. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like an A350 Squirrel. - BillCJ (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Born on all his points. In addition, I think the image is attractive to the user partly because of the striking scenery. However, there are so many possible pics available to place in this article that we can't have pics primarily for decoration. We have to have some limits, and usefulness to the text, image quality, and the availability of more-appropriate pics must be considered first. DOn't let this discourage you, however. People disagree with my all the time - and Born seems to think it's his job here to disagree with me! ;)

Well, all right then. I rest my case. --85.220.49.145 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pics are interesting, but this could happen everywhere. Most photos have descreption in the same corner as the photo can be seen in the article about where the photo takes place. And what's more useful link the name of the location, this is an encyclopedia, and while reading people that don't know crap about something want to click the word to know more. The first helicopter photo here tells where the photo is from, but doesn't link any word, I really think it should link some words. I agree that those photos should go to another page that's also about helicopters instead of the main helicopter page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The images here are for illustration purposes. Details aren't needed. Adding links to the captions can be an overlinking issue if the links are in text too. And propr spelin not reqired on talk pagges. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're assuming I'm thinking about linking the entire sentense, you're wrong. I'm just thinking about linking when relevant, for example when the pic says A photo taken in the nature of New York I woud like New York and it will be like: A photo taken in the nature of New York. And I don't think it's overlinking since there are people that know nothing about the stuff and want to click to learn more. Proper Grammar might not be a requirement, but I find it very important to use Proper English, I don't wanna type like a total jackass. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, I wasn't thinking about linking an entire caption, just things that might have been linked in text already. Captions don't have to be complete sentences. Be Bold and link what you think is lacking... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks

In the case of fantail and fenestron these TM marks are properly used by WikiMS standards, because they are separate designs owned by different companies. I read the Manual of Style and it should be indicated. These are brand name systems.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTM#General rules: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). That seems pretty clear that they aren't to be used. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we are distinguishing among brands of ducted rotor systems. It is for context, otherwise only ducted fan should be used. But it's your articles, do as you see fit.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not my article - if it was, it would look alot differrent, beginning with the silly TOC on the right! No one owns wikipeida articles, tho we may live on some pages! And I have reverted you a second time, have I? I won't unless the consensus is to remove the TM marks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

♠ Well I figured you must be angry with me about the article, because I'm working on it and you come blazing through making changes like I'm interfering here somehow. I can go work on other articles, it don't make me no nevermind. Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, I'm not angry. I just go down my watchlist and review changes as I come to them. If I stomped your edits, I'm sorry. I have over 3400 articles on my watchlist, and a bad memory, so it's better for me to just deal with pages as I come to them on the list. For future reference, you might consider using the {{inuse}} header tag on an article when you're making a series of changes over a period of time (say 20 mins to an hour). I'm using one the tag now at Cessna 172, if you want to see it in action. I'm shuffling pics around, and having to preview each move to see how it looks, and that's takes awhile. - BillCJ (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just went in and changed the whole Cessna page. haha J/K. Never knew about that inuse tag. I'll have to make a note of that one.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hovercraft, not helicopter?

I have looked at the "helicopter" Leonardo Da Vinci invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A hovercraft uses its fans to trap air in a air cushion, hence the alternate term "air-cushion vehicle". Clearly, this is not what Da Vinci's design did. It used a spinning spiral to try to create lift. While not a very efficent design, it is accepted as as ancestor of the modern helicopter by most, if not all, aerodynamicists. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a helicopter. His hovercraft did NOT create a pressure differencil. And his spining spiral is just a type of fan which did create an air cushion. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to add...

I found something that could be added to the history section, although I'm not sure of the exact source: "A slovenian blacksmith Vinko Kristan used his free time to create a flying machine, his own version of a helicopter, as far back as 1926. His inquisitive neighbours called the contraption the "samofrč", meaning self-flyer. It was composed of a piramid shaped body, made of wood and canvas, on the top of which a propeller was mounted. It was moved using pedals and had another smaller propeller on the side used as a stabilizing device. It flew about half a meter to one meter above the ground, it's said that one night it even went over one meter. It couldn't have been of much practical use however, because it probably required aggressive pedaling." 195.210.207.174 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That can't be added here without a valid reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find the exact source and post it here. 195.210.248.139 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.rotaryaction.com Rotary Action - guide to helicopters in movies and TV

It has useful information, but I don't know whether or not it's trivial, discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it could be used to eliminate the damn Trivia...I mean, Subject in popular culture sections in the helicopter articles, I say let it in. --Born2flie (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's useful, then it probably won't be allowed by the Delete-gods. I wish I were just being funny, but I have a feeling I'm dead-one! - BillCJ (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gazelle is missing the fake engine nacelles seen in the movie, Blue Thunder. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't even remember WHY I asked this to begin with. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image size

I really think that Image:HE2G8.jpg needs to be enlarged. At the default settings, it's very difficult to make out any sort of detail, and its usefulness suffers. I tried to enlarge it twice and was changed back twice, apparently due to concerns regarding WP:MOS#Images. But, the MOS states that specifying the size of images with extreme aspect ratios may be appropriate in order to improve page layout, which seems to be the case here. Not a huge deal, just wondering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it personally old since it's black and white. But I know what your point is, it's hard to see what the image is about when it's in the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the guideline is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia with a screen size that makes the photo look small. If you give the thumbnail a mandatory size of 300px and view the article at a 640x480 screen resolution, the pic will take up almost half the width of the page at that point. It can give an image more prominence that is perhaps misleading as to an image's actual importance to that part or the rest of the article. Frankly, I think the picture is poor quality and cropped badly (I don't believe that old pictures were that dimension, but possible). Granted, quality is a function of the age of the subject and the available source material, but this is the picture we're left with (unless someone can find a better one?). A custom image size for this image should probably be discussed here among the editors and a consensus reached on just which size would be agreeable to most. --Born2flie (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTAR Safety Attributes

I think the "Verification Needed" is unnecessary, because in this case the elimination of personnel injury potential is self-evident. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTAR is a tradeoff. The "self-evident" safety advantage has been debated ad nauseum in professional pilot and engineering circles. I had to look hard to find a single report about an individual being struck by the tail rotor, so how big of an issue is this? Some statistics of number of tail rotor strikes resulting in personal injury/fatality to gauge how much of a problem this has been versus how the NOTAR impacts in the realm of safety would be a nice verification. Otherwise, it is simply a statement that parrots the manufacturer's claims and the section becomes an advertisement for NOTAR. --Born2flie (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The article is maturing to the point where additions of pictures affect the layout of the different sections (white space, dividing sections of text). I propose that image additions and placement be discussed in the talk page to keep the article from being overwhelmed by rampant image addition. --Born2flie (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment that the pics are a problem. However, the editors who would make and follow your proposal aren't the ones adding the images. How do you suggest we enforce it? (Other than summary execution or water boarding (equal in the miniscule minds of the US media), which I would be in favor!) ;) I'm having similar problems on the A-4 page, including from an editor who should know better. I just keep deleting, sigh, then scream! - BillCJ (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on a text comment in the article and then of course, deletion of each image added to the article and initiating a discussion for each image here on the talk page. If the consensus is to not add the image, then there is a history showing that the image was considered and rejected with a list (hopefully) of reasons why. Editors who want to contribute might see the historical process (it can even be a talk subpage for each image) rather than just throw their favorite image where they think it fits, which seems to be the modus operandi for editors who have previously had nothing to do with this article. For those images that are just added without taking heed to the comment or the process, simply delete. If the editor feels that the image is worth including, bring it up for consideration on the talk page and the group determines where it goes.

Of course, many will claim WP:BB as their directive to continue to add images carte blanche. --Born2flie (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal works for me. If we get to the point wher we need sub-pages, then one sub-page for image discussions would be fine, but I doubt we'll ever need it! ;) I'm for trimming back as much as possible, and keeping the remaining images in the text. - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have put the two biggest "image farms" in gallery format. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ewww! Galleries are even worse, especially in the main text sections, where pics are often illustrative of the text in that section. - BillCJ (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that one. In gallery form they are more attached to the sections than they were before. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"more attached to the sections", but not the text within those sections, ot at least in order of discussion and moderately close to the relevant paragraphs. Galleries are useful in very short articles where there's not enough room for even 2-3 images, especiallyin cases with long infoboxes, or where there is a group of related images that don't really need to take up room in the text. We have a Commons link for the majority of pictures, and this makes article galleries redundant in most other cases. There is a discussion at WT:AIR#Galleries that is attempting to form guidelines for the use of galleries in aircraft-related article - feel free to chime in! - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a couple of days, and I'm not a fan of the galleries. In the end, they don't really solve the problem either, since they will just grow larger as the repository for all the additional images added to the article. --Born2flie (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

Regarding a revert of a wikification edit I made:

rv overwikification counter to WP:MOS intent and WP:OVERLINK.

My edits were hardly overwikification - I linked just a few concepts that a person reading the article would wish to explore to further their understanding of helicopters...

• hover - the word is used all over the article and is a pretty fundamental concept for helicopters, yet I do not see it defined anywhere on the page, and it is not wiki-linked anywhere on the page - it should at least be wikied under Flight conditions.
• the article tells me that helicopters can be used for transportation, for construction, for firefighting, search and rescue... I want to click on those things to find out more.. the link for Transport Helicopters is inexplicably routed to the military. Why have an Other uses list when the section right above that already talks about the same things in paragraph form?
• if the article says that helicopters put things on buildings or build roads or move troops, it is reasonable for me to want to find out more about those objects - why use helicopters.

Please actually read WP:OVERLINK. None of the links I created fall under WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked. As for WP:OVERLINK#What generally should be linked, consider "Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker", "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and technical terms.

From WP:MOSLINK: "Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page." for someone reading this article who is unfamiliar with helicopters, there are a large number of concepts they would naturally want to click on... many of the paragraphs in the current article have one or no links. Internal linking is one of the primary tools we use to bond Wikipedia together - WP:BUILD.

"Fire Helicopter" is a redirect to an article already linked at a much more relevant position in the article, even though downstream

Except that later link is wrong... it should be to Aerial firefighting which includes other aircraft and then no need for a pipe.--Marcinjeske (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• But Helitack is specific for helicopters. It is certainly not "wrong". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• As far as what should be not be linked, a lot of those linked are common words, e.g. roads. Your point about hover seems like a fair one. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In Defense of Linking

Well, it seems silly to link the words "aerial firefighting" to something else when the sentence clearly is referring to "aerial firefighting" (not just helicopter firefighting)... see how you like it now.

Yes, you are correct that I may have overdone it with "road", but that does not diminish the rest. Hover is just the easiest and most obvious example that comes to mind... up until my recent edit, there was no link to such basic helicopter terms as heliport and heliskiing or even Category:Helicopter airlines.

• Not to mention fun but relevant stuff like human-powered helicopter and helicopter prison escapes.
• Not to mention all the terms a user reading about helicopters for the first time might ask:
  • What's a gearbox? A tailboom? Yaw control? Airfoil? What does it mean to be steam-powered? What's altitude?
  • What about something like SimCopter - the existence of software to simulate helicopter flight should find a place in this article... and I am sure there are much appropriate flight sims?
• These all seem silly questions to ask... but this article is not being written for those who already know everything about helicopters.
• And yes, they could just type the word into a search engine... but then why is this article on a wiki at all if that's what you want readers to do in so many obvious cases. I am not advocating WP:BUILD#Wikipedia does not use Allwiki, but the nature of wikis and Wikipedia is that a healthy smattering of links build new paths of learning for the reader... yes, Nazi (linked in Helicopter#Birth of an industry has absolutely nothing to do with helicopters... but that does not mean the reader may not want to learn more. Let them do so with ease.

Anyway, I just did another edit to uses... we will see how other editors will react to those changes. I did try to reign in my linking impulses. --Marcinjeske (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Common words is precisely why I reverted the edit and Fire helicopter is a redirect to the article that was already linked to in the article, again in an appropriate place for people to be inquisitive about that particular use of helicopters. It was much simpler to revert and take a little collateral damage for any valid links than to edit it for each individual instance.

In general, do not create links to:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement.

In general, do create links to:

• Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.}
  — WP:OVERLINK, (emphasis added)

The relevant link for construction and logging is the article on aerial cranes, which discusses the use of helicopters for those uses. While relevant in that article, links to construction and logging are not relevant here where there is no further treatment of the helicopter use for those industries. I probably don't have to address roads.

"Fire Helicopter is a redirect to an article already linked at a much more relevant position in the article, even though downstream." Except that later link is wrong... it should be to Aerial firefighting which includes other aircraft and then no need for a pipe.

— Marcinjeske (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you looked at the Aerial firefighting article, when it treats helicopters, it tells you that the main article dealing with helicopters in aerial firefighting is...Helitack. So, why would we link to the middle man, when we can go straight to the source? Hover is a dab page, also listed in "What not to link" under WP:OVERLINK. The only wikilink that you added that I can't argue against as irrelevant, a dab, or a redirect to an already linked article is "airspeed", which first occurs in the article in the section you were editing. --Born2flie (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I do agree with What's a gearbox? A tailboom? Yaw control? Airfoil? What does it mean to be steam-powered? What's altitude? because I'm not aware of one of those terms. Great going with the links, it's always a good thing to see an article improved. I know how irritating it can be having to copy and paste terms into the search field, I can imagine. So great work you guys, I chose to watch this article because I wanted to know more about helicopters. Hell, I might even check those links sometimes. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The style of articles on Wikipedia is to be a summary of the topic, not a "full-length, in-depth expose of everything that could possibly be brought up about the topic, ever." --Born2flie (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously misread my post, and that's ok, I can misread too. I never said everything relevant should be linked, never. I was agreeing with one example. Again, I'm watching this page to learn more about helicopters. I never said that everything about helicopters should be included. I really think you must have misread my post, I was making a compliment in my last post, saying great job on the link, and I still am, keep it up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment is directed towards Marcinjeske's perception of what this article should include. It is a common misperception within Wikipedia that every article should be a "leave no stone unturned" exploration of the topic rather than meet the stated purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic article. I have no problem linking to relevant subjects in order to BUILD the encyclopedia. It is just frustrating when someone not vested in the progression of this article along the quality path comes in to make the article less than it was when they arrived because their edits aren't oriented towards the goal. To improve, you have to know where something is and where it is headed, you have to know what it will take to get it there. A guideline by itself, applied with gusto, is enough to take an article out of contention for the next level of article development. There are many subgoals to the Wikipedia, but the goal that always trumps out is to make a quality online encyclopedia. --Born2flie (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Uses of Helicopters

This is meandering toward frustrating... I appreciate your courtesy in at least evaluating my edits and leaving a few uncontroversial ones behind and improving them. I refer to hover, clearer use of helitack, helibuckets, and a few rewordings. You also improved the clarity of the firefighting and medical uses paragraphs.

However, I cannot understand why you insist that the remaining uses of helicopter be relegated to a list without any context. Of those links left in the Other uses list, the article for Motion picture photography, Electronic news gathering, Tourism, and Transport do not mention helicopters in their text, and except for Transport do not mention aircraft of any kind. And Transport mentions helicopter just once, stating that they are used for military application, and then directs the reader back to Helicopter. These topics are relevant to the Uses of Helicopters, but they need to be presented within contextual information so that the reader can know how they are relevant. The set of paragraphs I edited served that purpose... perhaps poorly, but better than a list.

You also removed reference to subjects that 1) have been deemed notable enough by editors to merit their own articles and 2) are directly relevant to the nature of helicopters - in being their uses in tourism, transportation, and culture. Why is it that the Uses section is composed almost solely of uses by institutions, emergency services and the military? Do not civilian and commercial uses merit note? Someone referencing this version of the encyclopedia would remain ignorant that individual people use helicopters to get around, conduct sports, experiment in their backyard, or to get their daily news and traffic. A list of "See also" links does not suffice in this case.

I am not proposing a "leave no stone unturned" exploration... I wish to only note the relevant stones so that readers may choose to turn them (by following the hyperlink) and continue their exploration. I too wish to build the Encyclopedia, and I think that in not being vested in the past progression of this article, I am bringing a fresh perspective to material that should not be set in stone.

I have carefully stepped through the archived discussions of this page, and I cannot find any discussion of why the Other uses list is in this form. I did find these wise words which I will now shamelessly take out of context:

• "An article about helicopters should have a good enough overview of the History and then focus on Uses of helicopters, rather than how they work."
• "Articles are supposed to change, evolve, not remain stagnant."
• "Denying one criteria may confirm another, and so, one brackets the target with indirect fires until one hits the target or else the target presents itself as a direct fire opportunity."

None of us should be here to fight each other; we are ultimately striving for a common purpose... so can we get some Helitack teams in here to douse the "fire"? (and yes, I am mixing your prior metaphor)

As for the aspiration to WP:TPA, I would again like to quote selectively:

• "is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject."
• "branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject."
• "acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject."
• "is not attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians. Perfection may not be achievable, but it's fun trying. For more information, see our editing policy."

I would appreciate any ideas on how turning the set of links at the bottom of the Uses section into prose would detract from the ideal set in WP:TPA. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of hover, would anyone object to using the Levitation disambiguation of it? That will lead to Bernoulli's principle among other tasty topics. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But a hover isn't levitation. And teaching someone that lift is simply an application of Bernoulli's principle is inaccurate and a disservice to the reader. The hover dab article links to Hover (helicopter), which is a redirect to Helicopter flight controls, an article where the explanation of the hover mode of flight is actually included in this article. So, is it really necessary to link to the word hover to explain it when the source that would ultimately be used in the Wikipedia to explain it is already included in this article?

Re: the list of uses versus a prose presentation. In addition to the previous paragraphs having an applicable target article that goes into some detail on the use of helicopters for those purposes, there is some depth to the topic which allows it to be discussed in a prose form, otherwise it would just be a longer bulleted list. Each preceding item is also self-contained in its paragraph with the information relative to that specific use, not multiple uses in a single paragraph. If you can build each of those items in the list into a paragraph with at least three applicable sentences for each item that are fairly decent grammar-wise and not just filler to make three sentences, I wouldn't fight that. But you had two or three topics in a single paragraph, which is just a disguised list.

The MOS says to make it a list (undisguised) or to rewrite it to where it doesn't resemble a list. In this article it repeatedly ends up as a list. Lists are allowed where there is not enough prose to support the information being provided, or when it is better presented in a list form.

In changing the article, the quality should not be reduced, but rather improved. The application of one guideline to the exclusion of another without consensus is not improving an article. What's more, the notion that articles should change isn't in response to a single editors' arrival and determination that the article should change but rather based on new information being available, changes in how the subject matter is addressed in industry/scholarly circles, new media available, all oriented towards developing the article to where it is the Wikipedia equivalent to "near perfect"; the FA-Class article (which is a goal able to be realized for over 1600 articles, and maybe someday even for this article). --Born2flie (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't even a good article yet. Let's make it a good article candidate before thinking about making it featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Born's main point was about improving articles. Featured Article status is (or should) be the end goal with Good Article status a step on the way. If every section was referenced, I don't think this article would lack much to making GA. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On hover and other similar terms... should they be linked when those links also appear elsewhere on the page. Certainly yes... unless those other links appear within a few paragraphs of the term's location, or it is clear that a reader will readily be able to locate the link. We cannot expect the user to see a term they do not understand or wish to know more about, and make them scan the page for a relevant link. This is especially so if the other appearance of the link is piped to a different name or the proposed link would pipe to a different name.

Looking more closely at Levitation, you are correct that it is not an optimal destination to send the hover-curious. The article does imply that Bernoulli's principle is the cause of the list rather than a step along the path. I hope you get a chance to improve it. (Although how one can argue that hovering is not levitation without really splitting hairs is unclear to me.) But Helicopter flight controls#Hover is completely inadequate... unless I am missing something, it does not cover what a hover is at all... it merely discusses how a pilot control the craft and the difficulties involved.

In regards to the Uses prose, are you suggesting that if a topic does not already have an extensive article in Wikipedia, we should refrain from mentioning it at all? The helicopter is the natural place to cover aspects of helicopter use which do not merit their own article at this time. The depth is there... helicopters are used to transport people in a number of different styles and how can heliports not be included in an article on helicopters? There are target articles for heliport, backpack helicopters, human-powered helicopters, and heliskiing, yet you removed that content as well.

As for the grouping and style, while I agree that the Search/News paragraph was mixed (couldn't you have just split them), the transport paragraph was a single paragraph all to itself. The paragraph on recreational uses including tourism, sport, and cultural was perhaps less cohesive, but that is mainly because aerial photography is used in so many ways. You allude to "decent grammar" and "not just filler" - my writing was not poetic, but where did it fail in grammar?

Anyway, I will post to the talk page a proposed rewrite of those... asking that anyone else who finds merit in the edits go ahead and make them... to make sure I don't take any further reverts personally. I did not appreciate your insistence that by describing how helicopters relate to what was a perfunctory list I was reducing the quality of the article. Your reference to "a single editor's arrival" makes it seem that if an editor has not already edited the article, they should not be allowed to start to edit it - an easy way to keep out any new contributions. If only "new information" will convince you to change the article, then you presume the article to be already perfect. That is not the case. --Marcinjeske (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you would take any thing I've said personally. It seems a lot of guff to justify your edits, or to subdue me into not opposing whatever edits you make. This is the personality conflict nature of "anyone can edit". Suffice it to say that I'm not against you editing this or any other article on the Wikipedia, or on my watchlist for that matter, but I am against editors in general who just plop prose down and call it good or an improvement. I don't think you've been honest with the edits you made, and it really just started with you wikifying everything in one section you felt needed "more". We didn't even talk about the formatting you attempted later, or the first person, "Upon reflection..." bit. On the positive side, you're more involved with the article, on the negative side, you seem to only care that what you offered be accepted regardless of the quality, real or perceived.

I'm also not suggesting or advising that you need to submit your edits on the talk page. It is an opinion I have for GA and FA-Class articles that will never reach consensus within Wikipedia. Edit the article at will, that's how Wikipedia works, just don't be surprised or offended if another editor comes along to edit what you put in there. As for me, you know what my position is, and how I will approach whatever you add; I'm looking for the quality of the contribution as well as trying to meet the MOS with an eye towards the goal of GA and then FA. --Born2flie (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No guff, I am simply expressing my frustration at what seems like an arbitrary line in the sand and I wish you would suggest what could be improved in my contribution to meet the standards of this article. Is it simply that a list of uses without any context as to how helicopters are used for those purposes is sufficient? I want to understand what you object to so that I may address it... if I have to blindly try and edit, we are both going to waste time undoing edits and that is pointless.

Why can we not touch on the transportation and recreational uses of helicopters in the Helicopter article? What about the paragraphs I have suggested makes them worse than the single link list they replace? You are wrong in that I am honest about my edits... my initial wikify phase came as I read through the article and found myself constantly thinking... have they introduced that term... or thinking I would like to click and learn more... and it not being a link. I never justified anything by my feeling the need for "more" links... but with specific links to relevant concepts of interest to a reader of the article.

Which formatting are you referring to? When I tried to separate the use paragraph or when I tried to touch the "holy list"? As for the "Upon reflection" being first person... please reconsider:

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

The reflection is that done by the suspects... I was merely using a bit of humor to engage the reader... particularly coming at the end of a paragraph where police were using helicopters to capture criminals... those suspects could apply that same tool to escapes. Whether it was an ill chosen turn of phrase I cannot say, but it certainly was not first person musings.

No, I am asking what is faulty with the quality of what I offered in that you reject it so quickly. It does not make sense for me to simply reinsert if your reaction will be to remove them... that is why I am attempting an alternate approach for a bit. The article you cherish so will not reach a higher status if is lacking in its coverage of how the subject is used in daily life... I hope that concerns you. --Marcinjeske (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're quickly getting into short answer territory.

1. Not the way you used, "Upon reflection,..." The paragraph is discussing the police and then upon reflection, you change to the criminals? It doesn't make grammatical sense. The significant change in style is what lends it to a first person interpretation of the use. Whose reflection, when the paragraph just concluded talking about police use of helicopters. What specifically about beginning the phrase that way lends the reader to believe that it isn't your reflection about the situation and your viewing criminals using helicopters irony? None.
2. Formatting: Using bolding to highlight words. It was contrary to MOS and I don't see a need to ignore that rule for your edits. Again, running contrary to MOS has consequences for the article.
3. The List. The list is not holy, nor is it special. I'd delete the list altogether, but someone will recreate the list in the hidden form of prose as soon as the list is gone i.e. its already been done before. You did it when it was present. Again, already happened before.
4. Your links:
   • You're telling me that you were curious about construction and roads? Or that you were satisfied with the links you chose to tell you how helicopters were used for each of those, that you made links relevant to the subject of this article? You're satisfied with the link you chose for "hover" to answer your stated question about, "What is hovering?" To me, these are arguments to justify your actions because they have been pointed out not to meet the common sense test about wikilinking articles based on the guidelines presented.
   • You linked phrases to articles about companies and categories. These are easter egg links and are to be avoided because the reader doesn't know the actual article they're going to is about a company and not the phrase you linked from. It really doesn't matter that the company does the kind of flying you're talking about. Also, the category link won't answer a questions about, "What is a helicopter airline?" All it will provide is a list of helicopter airlines. The guideline about wikilinking even says to preview the links, to verify the article exists or is about the subject you're linking to, you're stretching that to include any article that might remotely address what you've linked in order to justify linking at all. In fact, it has the appearance that you are advertising those specific companies in the article by linking to them specifically for those uses rather than any other similar company.
5. Expanding to prose.
   • Consequently, you've expanded the section with fluff telling people that helicopters pick people up in one spot and drop them off in another. Really? Wouldn't that be talking down to the reader?
   • Your POV suggestion that "rich" people get shuttled in helicopters. And without a source, it can only be construed to be the editor's conclusion.
   • Your second suggested paragraph is simply a list disguised in fluff prose.

1. Yes, the way I used it, as an dependent clause, it attaches to the subject of the sentence: suspects. These two sentences are semanticly identical:

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.
Some captured suspects, upon reflection, execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

To do what you are suggesting, *I* would have to be the subject of the sentence. As in: "Upon reflection, I think the rules of grammar are not the reason for the objection." But that's quibbling over an unessential turn of phrase... if we remove "upon reflection", do you object to suspects using helicopters to escape?

2. Bolding to highlight words. (Ignoring for the moment that bolding is literal highlighting.) You are correct, rereading the Boldface guideline, I was misapplying the style for an article introduction paragraph to all paragraphs. Thank you for correcting me. I will use italics in the future sparingly for that purpose per Wikipedia:MOSBOLD#Emphasis.

3. So perhaps not holy then... your firm stand is that a naked list is the best of two evils. So that goes back to my question of why civilian use of helicopters (for transport, recreation, etc) is not notable enough to actually be discussed briefly in this article? If "it already happened before', then perhaps you might consider that it is not just me being a looney who can't write or read, but that I am a part of a pattern of editors - those who see the article, see that something is obviously missing, and attempt to add it. Wikipedia:Embedded list does not give significant guidance either way, but do the other editors feel so strongly that these topics are not acceptable for a prose form?

4. Please, stop using the roads as your example... I already admitted, earlier on to another editor, that this was an unwise choice. As to construction, yes, it does naturally occur to me to read more on construction. Links serve both to expand on the article topic (Helicopter flight controls) and let users jump to other, related topics (like French language in the opening paragraph of the article). Per Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Internal_links:

"Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic,
the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page."

Linking to the hover disambiguation page was suboptimal, but better than not linking at all, since it gave readers the pointer to either Levitation or Hover (helicopter), at which point they could decide if they want to explore the idea of hovering in general or specifically how a pilot controls a helicopter in hover. I think both those articles are a bit disappointing, but that is life. Why can't you assume good faith on my part and have to question my motives... these "arguments" are not to justify my actions, but to justify the need for links at those particular points in the article.

Ok, that is finally some concrete criticism: linking to specific airlines. I could not find articles describing those uses, so I thought linking to articles about entities which exemplify those uses would be appropriate. That may have been a poor choice. How about footnotes of the "an example of such use is XXXX" variety? I looked through many articles here at Wikipedia to try to pick good representatives of each type. That you perceive it as promotion I can see. Would you also wish to remove all the brand names of helicopters which appear in the article next to "such as" and "common are"? I think that would detract from the article, as it makes sense to point out concrete examples to illustrate abstract discussion.

As to helicopter airline, there is sadly no entry for helicopter airline. There are at least two ways to define something, by description and by examples. Since we do not have a description of helicopter airlines, a list of them serves to illustrate what they are. (You could take the approach of trying to say what they are not, but that would take too long ;).

5. No, the "fluff" discusses why helicopters pick up and drop off people. It may be "talking down" to you, but given that the word passenger appears only once on the page, a casual reader could be excused for thinking that the only people in helicopters are pilots and firefighters.

No, the "rich" was not my POV suggestion... it had direct basis in the article I footnoted for that sentence. I personally don't think that helicopter travel in urban areas is solely for the rich, but I could not find sources to back that up so I went with what I had.

While the second paragraph is less cohesive than the first, it hardly is just a fluff of a list. It expresses the following ideas:

The purpose of helicopters in tourism is sightseeing; in sports, thrill-seeking.
Operators will not devote helicopters to a single purpose, but offer a mix of services.
In filmmaking, helicopters are used because of their ability to capture action scenes and panoramic views.
The energy industry needs to explore possible drilling sites and they use helicopters to do so.

Again, do you object to my specific phrasing, or do you object to these topics having words devoted to them? --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The problem is that "Upon reflection" doesn't fit the way you want it to without a transition, and the use of reflection versus reflecting makes it in disagreement with suspects and the modifying "some", which is also a vague term to be avoided. The end result is that phrase doesn't sound the least bit encyclopedic. And you already mentioned that you were attempting to "add humor" for the reader. If they wanted humor, they wouldn't be reading an encyclopedia. If you want the suspects escaping prison using helicopters, find an encyclopedic tone to write it in. The facts, just the facts.
2. The use of quotes makes me wonder how sparingly is sparingly?
3. The issue is that it has always been done poorly and the end result is, again, a disguised list.
4. The link to the French language is also a guideline for explaining foreign words and not simply an application of MOSLINKS.
5. The article on transport says that helicopters are used to move people from one place to another, and readers are able to get that from clicking on the freaking link in a list to answer the question, "How are helicopters used in transport?"
   • "rich" is a word with negative connotations. You need to find a different way to say that to maintain WP:NPOV.

--Born2flie (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reflections on Grammar, Style, and Links

Starting a new section to ease viewing and response (and to reduce the impression that we are hovering without purpose).

1. I recognize that a reader could be confused by the usage of "upon reflection" and misunderstand its meaning. Therefore, as I have said, let us remove it. However, I am inexplicably driven to correct such a misunderstanding of grammar (it must be a subliminal message in the monobook skin):

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

• "upon is a preposition, which creates "a relationship between other words in a sentence" [7] or, if you prefer an internal source, "indicates a relation between things mentioned in a sentence"
  • this means that "upon reflection" is a prepositional phrase
  • the phrase's surface position is purely syntactic and has no semantic relevance - meaning there is no effect on meaning
    • these sentences are semantically the same: "Upon reflection, Todd ate a sandwich."; "Todd, upon reflection, at a sandwich."; "Todd ate a sandwich upon reflection."; "Todd ate, upon reflection, a sandwich." In fact, the commas are there because I like commas (and to clearly separate the phrase); they are (mostly) not strictly necessary. See: "This morning Todd ate a sandwich."
  • Therefore, "upon" is defining a temporal relationship: First "reflection" happens, then "Todd eats a sandwich".
• So now we are back at "reflection", what is it and who is doing it. (And using "reflecting" instead would make no difference.)
  • reflection is "serious thought or consideration" (Per New Oxford American) and is based on the idea of bending your perception to look back at or within yourself, like looking in a mirror.
  • The subject that indulges in reflection needs to be some thinking being(s). In the sentence, there is only one to choose ("suspects") because neither helicopters nor prisons can think (at least not yet - queue the RoboCop-ter!).
    • You rightfully point out that the subject does not have to be in the sentence, it could be implied. However, explicit subjects are usually preferable.
      • Possible subjects beside "suspects" include: the speaker ("Upon my reflection") and the reader ("Upon your reflection") and any number of possible groupings ("Upon the Senate's reflection", "Upon Aunt Sally's reflection", and so on). All these sound a bit artificial because they act against the natural inclination to attach to a subject within the sentence.
      • Implied subjects are usually only valid in writing an imperative statement, and even then the usual implied subject is the reader: "Go read a book on grammar."
      • I would argue that the subject cannot be the speaker, as Wikipedia is not written in the first-person. The best one can imagine for a speaker is "the collective of all editors", but I think that is not something that will come to the mind of the reader. I think you, reading that sentence in isolation and knowing it is written by me, are able to imagine a speaker, but a reader doing so in the context of reading the article would need to engage in some linguistic convulsions to do so.
    • In general usage, I find that in cases where there is not a clear subject already in the sentence, "upon reflection" is meant to attach to a generic "person" (basically, some arbitrary thinking entity) because the important part is what is being reflected upon. Common usage like "Upon reflection, it seems clear that ..." is not talking about what the writer thinks unless the writer is writing in first person. In scholarly works, it implies anyone... "After one thinks about it, it seems clear" - but notice that "After I think about it, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes." is nonsensical.
• I hope that suffices... I have exhausted my ability to discuss prepositional phrases for at least two weeks. (and exposed myself to everyone pointing out my grammatical mistakes in anything I write) --Marcinjeske (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back and clarify the fact that prison means that they aren't suspects, they're convicts. If it was a jailbreak, then they could be suspects, although they could also be convicts at a jail as well. More properly we could call them inmates. And again, all kinds of justification for a poorly worded sentence inserted where it made no sentence agreement in the paragraph, because the subject of the paragraph was talking about police use of helicopters. If you had previously been discussing Tom, then referencing Tom's reflection and subsequent action might be acceptable. Additionally, "Upon reflection" is more often used to describe a change in thought or action by the subject based upon their reflection. You've used it to simply suggest (without a source) that the use of helicopters by inmates to escape prison is a thought generated by their remembering how they were captured. So, I would say, again, that this is an improper use of "Upon reflection...". I think you're just too married to how you want to present that sentence, and I question how much more you're going to add to this library trying to make it acceptable. --Born2flie (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Style tags

I just added a whole bunch of style tags to the page to flag up for editors stuff that really does need to be done to improve the wiki-ness of the article. Some sections have no reference at all, many sections are quite light on references. Some of it is just lists (which is understandable at this stage, as the lists were created to make a record of the sort of content that needs to be included). While there is some content in sections that needs to be fleshed out, those sections have those tags, and style seems to be the big thing that needs a push at this stage imo. Petemyers (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Uses Paragraphs

I am proposing that these be added to the uses section in place of the related item from the Other Uses list:

Helicopters are used to transport passengers between heliports which provide facilities for passenger processing, refueling, and maintenance. In urban areas, helicopter airlines serve to quickly shuttle business people and the rich within the city or to destinations in the region and often offer regular service to local airports. Helicopter passenger service is used to connect isolated communities in mountains or between islands or bring personnel to at-sea facilities like oil platforms. Although passenger helicopters in use are common models, designs for backpack helicopters to serve as personal transport have been devised along with attempts at human-powered helicopters. When war or unrest disrupts more typical routes, governments use helicopters to evacuate personnel and civilians out of danger. Helicopters also transport government officials and other dignitaries when time is of the essence and travel by motorcade is inappropriate.

Helitours are conducted for the purpose of tourism or sport (heliskiing). Operators may take customers on flights for the purpose of sightseeing or thrill-seeking. Helicopter operating companies will use their fleet to offer a wide variety of services, for business and government as well. Film studios use them to capture panoramic scenes or fast action for motion picture photography. Helicopters also provide aerial photography for mapmaking, surveillance, scientific, and artistic purposes. They are important to the energy industry which needs to explore possible drilling sites.

Let's with those... if there is some sort of view that the writing is trash... well, I welcome you to improve it... if need be, we can set up a user sub page to allow for more fluid editing.--Marcinjeske (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel old

In the switch from BC to CE & back, did somebody forget there's an 800 yr difference? Somehow, I doubt there were helicopters 2400 years ago... Trekphiler (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, checked the reference. 400 AD/ACE is the right timeframe. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why wikipedia stinks

Whole pages is nothing more than stupid rotor talk. Whoever is doing the editing is doing a poor job.

Most of this stuff is redundant: Just like MOST Wiki articles.

People want to know HOW THEY WORK. Why do you have to go to 'how things work' to find our how the helicopter functions.

There is NO MENTION OF SWASHPLATES in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.149.236 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian and American inventions category

Dear users. Unfortunately, many of us editors about inventions arent aware of an important category: Category:Inventions by country. This article fits Russian inventions, because Sikorsky was Russian, and American, because most of the design was done there.

If you have the question of but wait a minute!!! Many people took part in thar invention, many theries. To who of them it goes?

To the one who is widely considered. For example. The Tank. Before the British made the tank that became commercialy succesful many people built models of it. Some succesful. But the British made it really famous, commercialy succesful. They made the model that counts, lets say it like that. Thats why the tank goes to British inventions.

ANother point. If a man is of one nationality, but made the invention in another country, the invention fits both categories, and that is the case here. See the example of Rubber band. It enters the category of English inventions even though it was invented in Australia, why? It's inventor was English.

Please be aware of that type of categorising to. Kostan1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky developed the first production helicopter. That does not mean he "invented" it though. Read the history section here. Also, provide an edit summary with your edits. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Same thing as the British havent invented the tank. Or Lodygin built the lamp before Edisson, but it goes to Edison. The one who managed to produce it is a strong factor. It goes to who it is widely considered to. I dont know how to do the edit summary. But your point is realy strong and that is the main problem with those categories. It has cruel critereas. Every invention had many developers, and the rest of the series. Kostan1 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Making an edit summary is easy, notice the bar between the big box where you make your edit and "[Save page] [Show preview] [Show changes]"? That's where you put your edit summary. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Power Sources

I've removed this section. The helicopter referred to in it is an RC (Remote Control) Helicopter which is a different subject altogether in some senses, so calling the section "alternative power sources" is therefore misleading. Also, the reference is to the Helicopter's datasheet - this is a primary source, and therefore is original research anyway. Petemyers (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Data from a company does not fall under WP:PRIMARY. Electric power and other alternate sources seems like a valid topic to me. It should be more general coverage than one example though. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a valid topic - but the section is misleading as they're not alternative sources of power for manned full size helicopters.. but that's the subject of the rest of the article, so at best this sentence needs to be incorporated into a different section. Data from a company is not specifically addressed in WP:PRIMARY, however the document does include "administrative documents, patents" as primary sources, quote from here: Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. So a datasheet would be considered a primary source (if somebody wrote a book on the Rotomotion SR20 - which would be a secondary source, they would have to refer back to the datasheet, because there is no more primative source of information for this product - making it a primary source). There is a whole article on Radio-controlled helicopters, and a section on helicopters in Radio controlled plane. I'll leave it a day and then remove the section again, unless someone posts otherwise here. Petemyers (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing that limits this article to manned helicopters. Still don't agree that's a primary source. The policy does not state companies, only individuals. Press releases from companies are valid sources and are used all the time. Give others a chance to respond before removing... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using primary sources where no contention or synthesis exists according to WP:PRIMARY. The data sheet is fine.

Is the Rotomotion SR20 exemplary of the state of current technology regarding alternate power sources in helicopters? Understanding that current state is relative to the article on manned helicopters (i.e. how far from manned electrics are we?) If the SR20 isn't an example of that boundary, it would perhaps be best exchanged for a better example. My 2 cents. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson - "nothing limits the article to manned Helicopters", ok agreed. "It's ok to use primary sources where no contention or synthesis exists", thanks for the clarification. Berean Hunter has, I think, a good point about the Rotomotion SR20, that sentence does sound like a random advert for this one product! How to move forward from here... suggestion: How about we add a subsection to the Helicopter#Uses section that covers RC Helicopters, and that subsection can link to the main article Remote controlled helicopter. We can include information about electric engines in that. Because - as far as I know (I'm prepared to be corrected :) ), there is nothing like a manned electric helicopter in production or design anywhere in the world. So, can I go ahead and attempt to make that change? Petemyers (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal - Rotor Configurations with article Helicopter Rotor

The sections entitled "Helicopter Rotor System" and "Rotor Configurations" are too similar. The Rotor Configurations section contains too much detail for this article - which could be fleshed out with something other than the helicopter rotor, I'm sure there's more to helicopters than this one topic. I suggest Rotor Configurations is merged into the article "Helicoptor Rotor". Thoughts? Petemyers (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2 sections are different. Just copy parts or all of the Rotor configurations to Helicopter rotor. No need to tag for that. If you want to move most of the text to that article, use a split tag. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get on and do that. Petemyers (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the measure of too much detail? I know that Wikipedia does not have an objective measure for "too much" so you need to share why you think it is too much detail and justify how the article will stand without it. As it is, the section is a refinement on information that has been in the article for a long time, and inclusion of some other information to make that section more complete.

"I'm sure there's more to helicopters than this one topic."

Do you mean the Rotor configuration? Sure there is, but you might be going by the TOC which gives the section a larger appearance than the history, when they are similar in size. The Uses section could be larger, but there just isn't a lot of sourced information to build articles that aren't there currently, and in order to add them to this article, you would also need those same sources, albeit fewer of them. All the discussion about rotors, both configuration and types, takes up as much space as the history.

Now, the history could stand to be fleshed out some also. And the history of the article shows that as soon as the discussion about everyone's favorite helicopter configuration is removed from the article, they'll try and inject it into a section whether or not it belongs there. So, the removal of it has to be based on something objective like the MOS guideline or a discussion with a consensus reached here on the talk page. Fnlayson recommended a split tag, which you placed, but then cut the entire section over to Helicopter rotor system, which wasn't exactly the consensus that Fnlayson offered you. I've since reverted that edit but left your tag. However, we should phrase the proposed split for discussion. --Born2flie (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok... well, I haven't helped here at all it seems, so I'll just leave this to someone else. Though, if you've put it back on the Helicopter article, you need to remove the text from Helicopter Rotor. Petemyers (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to make it as if you hadn't helped, just that within the Wikipedia there are processes that are there to protect the article and make sure that the article is developed with a consensus. If you feel that it is too much detail, I'm just asking you to explain what is too much detail and why you feel it should be removed. Although, the preferred method is to edit and rewrite the content to something with the appropriate detail level, not simply cut it out and move it somewhere else.

There is also information on WP:Merge with guidelines about how to discuss the merge and to try to gain consensus for the merge or split. By clicking on the link in the merge/split banner on the article, it will take the reader/editor to the appropriate page to discuss the action. --Born2flie (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Born2flie. Sorry, I thought I had built consensus on it. I realise that I hadn't now, thanks. Here's my reasoning - what do others think?

The actual merger makes sense of the material that's already there: If you compare Helicopter with Helicopter Rotor, then Helicopter contains far more, and far more detailed information about Helicopter Rotors. I think that's bizarre. Also, the article is currently dominated by Helicopter rotors... there are two sections which arguably seem to cover this one area. Helicopter#Helicopter rotor system seems to me to be a good "summary" of the topic, and the information section about individual rotor configurations (in Helicopter#Rotor configurations) would be a sensible "next step" to go to... and I would expect to find that information in the article that Helicopter#Helicopter rotor system links to (which is Helicopter Rotor).

This article could be much broader, and therefore much more useful: I'm not a pilot, I'd love to be. I've only ever flown in a Helicopter once, but I find them fascinating. So coming to an article like this, I would like a much broader sweep of information that then allows me to click through to more detailed information as takes my fancy. At the moment, there is some stuff on Helicopter history and uses, but the vast majority of content is on Helicopter rotors and rotor systems. But what about: Landing, taking off, Helicopter records, piloting helicopters, helipads, electronic components, what happens when they stall (loads of uninformed readers will come to an encyclopedia to discover that), what kinds of fuel can they run on?, are they more or less fuel efficient than other vehicles?, are they safer than aeroplanes?, just some of the many things that aren't really answered in the article in anything like the depth that rotors are.Petemyers (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see better where you are coming from and I can agree with that. I just don't think that the current section covering the rotor system explains anything about the configurations and I don't think that removing the section on configurations improves the article. I do think we could edit the configurations into a couple paragraphs and include them under the rotor system section.

While you're at it, could you tell me what you think of the Limitations section? I mean, as a non-pilot. To me, it seems to have been included by pilots, and most probably student pilots or even instructors, and so it doesn't seem to be intended to benefit a "normal" reader. Does the section make you want to learn more? Does it put you off of helicopters? I've noticed that the fixed-wing aircraft article has no such section. While it does discuss air safety, that is mostly in relation to the airline industry and not particularly discussing any limitations of the aircraft type. That and the section in this article just seems to totally throw off the entire balance of the article. As the new blood on the article, do you have any ideas on how to make it fit better? --Born2flie (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think rotor system and configurations sections should be merged together at least... and we should look at the Helicopter Rotor article and think through what should be outsourced to that article from this one... or at least, what kind of extra depth that other article should have.

Limitations sections aren't great, they're often a vague dump for uncategorised information, and I think they're discouraged somewhere in the wikipedia policy documents (sorry, haven't got time right now to reference that). I think the article needs to be re-thought from the top down. Clearly - to helicopter aviators - the rotor systems are really important... but it's just hard to get excited about them, because the article goes into too much depth on that too quickly. The limitations section doesn't want to make me learn more, no. Thinking big broad brushstroke, I would suggest the article needs individual sections on: rotors; engines; piloting/controls; safety; uses; history; design and manufacture; instruments; structure; development; ... and only one section on each of those topics... that's just a novice's punt... as a pilot can you improve on that list?Petemyers (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the Safety section, and it can generically address both the current Limitations and Hazards of helicopter flight sections, and even retain the accident listing. I've trimmed down rotor configurations to three paragraphs. I'm going to remove the split template. I think we can edit both the configurations and system sections together into something more of an overview on the topic, leaving the detail to the rotor article, since it now contains all the information that was previously in this article. --Born2flie (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I grouped the related sections as described above. That's a start. Adjust section labels as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like what has happened here in the last few days. These changes seem to have totally changed the style of the article, to the point that I don't believe it to be encyclopedic anymore (in the sense of covering all knowledge about something). The old article seemed to cover all the many different types of helicopters, had great pictures of them, and now it's just a bunch of text, and all the pictures are of single rotor helicopters. It's gone wrong. The wikipedia needs to use the most reasonably general definition of something in all its major articles (like this one), not just the most common of something, and this article has veered towards common, and I believe this to be deeply undesirable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi wolfkeeper, thanks for chipping in. I'm just trying to make sure I understand your concerns properly, you are concerned the article isn't encyclopedic anymore... because it has less information in. Is that correct? What do you make of the discussion that we've had about the breadth of this article, allowing a reader to go into more depth in more specific articles elsewhere? Actually covering the topic with more breadth makes it - I think - more encyclopedic. Which I think Born2Flie and Fnlayson have done a great job beginning to shape. I think that's your first concern, have I understood you, and do you want to develop any of what you've said for us?

Your second concern is that the pictures now only reflect single rotor Helicopters? I think we could probably put some more pictures in to reflect the range of Helicopters there are... and that would fit nicely within the new structure the article has anyway. I'd agree that would be a good idea to add a range of different pictures in, what do others think? Petemyers (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just shifted a couple of the headings around so that within Helicopter#Design_features, there's only one subsection on Rotors. Since this doesn't actually change any content, I didn't think it would be contentious, and just went ahead and did it... it makes sense to explain rotor configurations after the introductory paragraph about rotors, and before the specific information about different types of system. Please shout at me if that was aviation heresy. Petemyers (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've just changed the heading to subheading to "Rotor System", we already know it's the Rotor system for a Helicopter as we're reading the Helicopter article. Petemyers (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the subheading is perfect. I can sympathize with Wolfkeeper about the majority of single rotor helicopter photos, I would've said more about the Bell bias in the photos though. --Born2flie (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the engines section

Ok, engines section needs expansion. How? Some suggestions of things it needs to cover (though these aren't suggested as subheadings): Fuel, different types of combustion engines, things specific to Helicopter engines. I was amazed to discover on the internet in research of this, that lots of Helicopters use non-thrust producing jet engines, for example. Who knows about Helicopter engines, what needs to be covered? Petemyers (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reference to a non-thrust producing jet (turbine) engine is talking about the turboshaft engine, which is mentioned in the history section. Additionally, there was a previous subsection under the configurations that addressed tip jet engines. It should be included in the engine section, because while it provides another antitorque option, it is primarily a power source for turning the rotor and the lack of torque effect is a byproduct benefit. I don't think fuel is important other than a mention with each type of engine. Engine type and size is a significant determinant to the size and functions of a particular helicopter, but I'm not sure how to describe that in an encyclopedic way. Take a look at the introduction for the turboshaft engine, and we might need to look at articles for the models of reciprocating engines, as well as the model helicopters they are used in, to come up with a cohesive discussion of their use in helicopters. --Born2flie (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think there's bound to be overlap with the history section on a number of points... i.e. the history section will tell the reader when particular design features appeared, and the rest of the article will tell the reader what they mean, why they were developed and how they work.

Engine type and size is a significant determinant to the size and functions of a particular helicopter.

That's an important point to go in the introduction of the section on engines. I'm sure it can be made encyclopedic if we find a secondary source for it.Petemyers (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I started the engine section off with a list. It doesn't reference any sources, but almost everything it says at the moment is lifted from another wikipedia article. At least it's a start. I can't find any other type of engine that needs to be covered here. Petemyers (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that RC helicopter information should be included in this article. The Aviation WikiProject and this article, fall under Transportation. And RC helicopters are unsuitable for transportation. Radio-controlled aircraft have their own articles. --Born2flie (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe WP:Aviation falls under WP:Transport. Obviously it is form of transportation though. So what about UAVs? If non-manned helos are to be excluded, the article should say so somewhere for the uninformed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIR used to be under WPTRANSPORT, but WPAVIATION was formed about a year and a half ago to be WPAIR's new parent Project, and airlines and airports were invited to join, which they did. RC aircraft should have a link under See also, but I don't think they should have more than a cursory mention in this article. UAVs are generally full-size aircraft (but not always), and often are conversions of manned types (MQ-8B, UMLB). They should receive some coverage, but most of it should be in the UAV airticles. My 2 shillings. - BillCJ (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on WP:Aviation's parent (now none). However, I would caution how much of a mention such "vehicles" receive for a myriad of reason, not the least of which is the inclusion of fancruft for each RC model as well as the introduction of fictional helicopter models, which will be justified by, "Well, if you've included $x$, then $y$ should be included." Much along the same lines as, "Build it and they will come." My recommendation is that they be included in the See also section, since they already have their own articles and that this article be used to discuss the actual vehicles[8] called helicopters.

As far as engines are concerned: Most 19th century models and a couple early helicopter attempts were powered by steam engines. Radial engines were used in the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 and the Flettner Fl 185, since they were adaptations of autogyro technologies. Sikorsky chose a Franklin aircraft engine for the Sikorsky R-4, the same company that would make the engine for the Tucker Torpedo. Bell and Hiller both started with Franklin engines in their earliest helicopters but ended up using Lycoming engines which has became a de facto standard for helicopters. Turboshaft engines were introduced to the world by Sud Aviation. And today, Turbomeca and Rolls Royce have the lion's share of the turboshaft business, although Pratt & Whitney Canada and GE have a presence for larger helicopters. --Born2flie (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I spot a consensus there that the article shouldn't cover RC Helos? I think that's a wise decision... since there's already a Helicopter disambiguation page, should reference to RC Helos just be made there? Or does there need to be a specific reference in this article? Come to think of it - there should be some kind of policy across Helo and Fixed Wing on reference to RC stuff shouldn't there? Petemyers (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a consensus. There are other editors that I would wait for them to weigh in, just to give everyone a say, especially since WP:AIR no longer falls under WP:TRANSPORT. That would be in order to give a fair chance to suggest that there is a broader consensus than just among the four or five of us that are currently active. Wolfkeeper hasn't chimed back in and Arpingstone has opinions on photos and Anthony_Appleyard has a broader opinion of what should be included, and there are others. I don't always agree with everyone, but this article is that important to me that it needs a broad consensus, especially here on the talk page, to progress to a higher quality article. When WP:AIR was a child project to WP:TRANSPORT, it was easy to say that RC vehicles didn't fall under transportation. Now the case to exclude them isn't so clear. For now, RC helicopters is already listed in the See also section and I've added Unmanned aerial vehicle to the list also. --Born2flie (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good point. Fnlayson seemed to be the only person on the talk page who'd had a previous disagreement with removing unmanned vehicles, but (s)he seemed to change his/her mind in this discussion. But I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Petemyers (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again this article is simply called "Helicopter". Nothing there to strictly limit it to manned ones. However, anything more than brief coverage of unmanned helicopters could give them too much weight. The article mentions toys and models in the history section already. The current mention/link for RCs seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Born2flie - could you please add your engine information to the list? Though things like steam, hmmm, since it's a form of engine that's no longer in use, should it be confined purely to the history section? I'm not sure. Petemyers (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Measurements and English Variant

Measurement: Even though I'm from the United States, I recommend metric be the standard for this article because helicopter flight began in Europe. The history portion of the article will have to be edited to comply. Spelling: It seems that most of the article is written in U.S. English. I can't determine if that is because of a weight of U.S. editors on the article or because the article was originated by a U.S. editor. I've edited other articles that utilised British spellings and had no real issues contributing. My recommendation is that unless it is shown to be originated by an editor using a different variation of English, that U.S. English be used. Not a nationalist matter for me, but rather a practical matter of not wanting to hunt through the history to determine who started it and what variant they used, and then have to weed through the article to ensure all the spellings are changed, although if someone else desired to do that and share the diff so it can be established one way or the other... --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a better explanation for why you reverted my substitution in of convert templates for all the figures. You pointed to WP:MOSNUM but reading this there is nothing there to say that conversion templates should not be used on small numbers. The conversion templates make sure the conversions are accurate and help keep the format consistent. Prior to my doing all that work there were some values in text, some numerical, some had the units written in full, some abbreviated. It seems like my edit was only an improvement and all that reverting it achieved was wasting my time. It certainly didn't deteriorate the article in any way. Unless you can explain why having them is a bad thing, or provide a valid reason for me not to revert them back in, that is what I will do. Mfield (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Your application of {{convert}} wasn't quite universal throughout the article. Since you weren't going to take the care to ensure that all numbers were converted, and because the MOSNUM-compliant numbers had been changed by applying {{convert}}, I reverted and hardcoded the conversions into the text of the article. Also, {{convert}} defaults to the SI spelling, and we just started discussing whether or not to use the U.S. or the Queen's English standard for spelling. I think your application of {{convert}} was a waste of your time in the first place, and reverting back to your version will likely be another waste of your time. Unless you can apply the guideline more thoroughly and account for more than one section of the guideline, we will probably be discussing mine and your actions on this article again. --Born2flie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If all it would have taken was for you to add the few that I may have missed (or the few that could not be converted such as horsepower data, then the better course of action on your part would have been to do that rather than to revert all. What spelling type is used is a separate issue that could be readily changed later, even easier in fact as would be simple to do a search and replace once the {{convert}} templates were universal. I am not going to get into a pointless debate about it though, if you'd prefer to revert good faith edits without discussion, correcting the simple errors or contacting me to point out I had missed a few, then I would rather leave you to it. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you had simply added the units that hadn't been previously converted and "hardcoded" into the text, and if you had spelled out the units that were abbreviated instead of text, it would've been a much simpler edit that took less of your precious time than rewriting all most measurements in the History section using {{convert}}. --Born2flie (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The convert template has a US spelling option and a bunch of other options, but nothing for spelling a number as a word, e.g. 2 -> two. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of words instead of numbers wasn't standardized before I edited it either. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is a part of the guideline that you seem to have been previously unaware of, and that parts of the article had been in compliance with prior to your edits. --Born2flie (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think that the choice between numbers and words has a lot to do with the context, i.e. whether the figure is being used as a number of items or an empirical value for e.g a height. So to prefer "Two helicopters" over "2 helicopters" and "the aircraft attained an altitude of 6 feet" over "six feet"? Mfield (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an adoption of a writing standard that says that those numbers should be spelled out in text whether it be for a unit of measure or a count of objects. I'm familiar with that standard, remembering it from grade school, and having come across it later in other venues, so I don't think it is simply a preference for context. There are exceptions listed in the MOS guideline, but none of them really applicable to this article, as far as I can determine from the article's context. --Born2flie (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the word 'airplane' be used?

I'd like to propose that 'airplane' should be removed from the article and, where approriate, replaced with 'Fixed wing aircraft'. The reason for this is simple, The spelling 'airplane' Is only correct in North America and as such is an incorrect spelling with in the commonwealth and to many non-native speakers of english. Its use makes the article read badly outside of N.America and the Wiki article is titled 'Fixed wing Aircraft'. (Morcus (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

 Done IAW WP:MOS. Thanks for pointing that out. --Born2flie (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing from a common term to a less common one. Got to make everybody happy, whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming across this nonsense 9 mo later... Change it back!!! I am from the Commonwealth, fiexed wing aircraft is just clunky-sounding. Also, AFAIK the policy is to have each page in one type of English only. 41.247.136.4 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiltrotors

I concur with Born2flie that ths addtion of the comments on tiltrotors is not needed. Encyclopedias need to be as consise as possible without strying into tangental areas, especially in an article that is allready lengthy. Also, introducing another item in a complex discussion is likely to confuse a reader who does not yet understand the concept of a helicopter rotor, rather than make it easier to understand. - BillCJ (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiltrotors are still included in the "Antitorque configurations" section lower down in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter toy

The helicopter toy is touted as being used in China in 400 AD. This is believed to be the one held between the hands and spun by sliding the palms apart. Another version is held in a spindle with a string wrapped around the mast, which spins the mast when the string is pulled out through the spindle. In the book, Wings by Tom Crouch (ISBN 0393057674), he says that the earliest record of this type of toy was a drawing in a 1325 Flemish manuscript. The toy also appeared later in drawings in other european manuscripts and in the painting, Children's Games by Pieter Bruegel the Elder in 1560. There is no reference for an obscure painting of the year 1463 or that a toy depicted in such a painting is one that originates from China. --Born2flie (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done for spotting this Born2flie. The first source ([9]) is vague "Over two thousand years ago...". The second one ([10]) states that the Chinese helicopter goes back "at least 1500 years". The third source ([11]) actually dates the Chinese top to 400BC in it's timeline, but the 400AD claim in our article seems to be lifted from the first line of that page, which states "The first concept of rotary wing aviation came from the Chinese in the fourth century A.D." At least that's the best candidate for where the "400AD" date came from (which would also require a misunderstanding of how centuries are counted). So there seem to be a number of issues here:

1. As it is, it appears the 3rd source is the primary source for all the actual facts cited in this paragraph. The first two sources are placed in such a way as they are made to look like they support the "400AD" date, but they don't. This is misleading.
2. We have three sources, which are all conflicting... and the source that our article rests most heavily on even conflicts with itself.
3. The language of the article does not reflect the language of the sources. It should probably not have a date, but a much vaguer reference to the century... or even vaguer than that.
4. Even then, the fourth century AD begins in 300AD not in 400AD. So the article is just plain wrong.

So, my vote is that either we get a better (i.e. hard-copy published) source for the date of this Chinese toy thing, or we just remove the reference altogether. I'll put some tags, etc. on the page to indicate some of the work that needs to be done. Petemyers (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any relevant templates or tags, so I'm not going to mark the page. Petemyers (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There was some back and forth edits on 400 BC/AD. The vectorsite page said 1500 yrs ago, so I believe I added that as a reference to stabilize things. See if anyone can find a better source for that toy date. The earliest thing mentioned in helicopter book I have is de Vinci. {{t1| seems to be the proper tag here. I already added one for the 1463 painting. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motives Fnlayson, well done for ending what sounds like an edit war. But 1500 years ago, actually puts the date more like 500AD. I think we obviously need to get as many sources as we can. I'll stick in a list here.Petemyers (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• More like some sparing than warring. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in the space of 2 minutes, I've found 2 sources which support the 400BC date. One of which is a Cambridge University press book. For that reason, I'll put that source in the article, and change the date to 400BC. Petemyers (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well done, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Anything for the 1463 painting? --Born2flie (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section below with any sources I can find on this. Sounds like the painting - if it ever existed - was lost. From the first source I've found, it sounds like it's worth mentioning that there is rumour of an obscure painting existing... but the current sentence stating that it's absolute fact is probably too heavy. Petemyers (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1463 source my conclusion - check it out if you want, but this source is just smoke and mirrors. I stopped bothering looking through Google... almost all the sources say essentially the same thing, sometimes they move the facts round in a different order, and sometimes they change the odd word. It's not even clear anymore what sources predate the Wikipedia article, and what sources have lifted their text from the Wikipedia article. No source I've found offers any evidence, or cites any reason, for it's claim that there was a picture in 1463 with a chinese helicopter toy in it. The blog entry is the closest, offering an alternative picture from the 1480s where you can clearly see a child holding a helicopter toy. I've found nothing in Google books. My view is we remove this thing until we find a source that's better than an obscure website. Though I won't do that now, waiting for your response... Petemyers (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the information today. Someone had included the link to Dr. Leishman's history in his aerodynamics text, however, my experience with Dr. Leishman as a source is that his vetting of his historical sources is questionable. Until this vague painting can be accurately established with a name, an artist, and a year, it should not be included as a historical fact. --Born2flie (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of sources for Chinese toy date

1. Wired article which references 400BC date: [12]Petemyers (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Google book (Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics By J. Gordon Leishman) which supports 400BC date: [13] Petemyers (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Google book (Helicopters by Stanley S. Magowan) supports the 400BC date: [14] Petemyers (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

List of sources for 1463 painting

1. A blog entry mentioning that this is a "popular idea": [15] Petemyers (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2. A helicopter history website that just makes the "raw claim": [16] Petemyers (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Another "source" basically touting exactly the same thing: [17] Petemyers (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, lots of the sources referenced are almost word for word the same as the WP article. Is this because the paragraphs on this were originally ripped off from somewhere? Or because a lot of these sources are actually ripping off Wikipedia (giving us a big circular loop of references?). I'm VERY tempted to suggest that we comb through this article and make sure that we use as many published sources as possible - and only web sources that are really really good/old. Petemyers (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Helicopter article bibliography

I'm a new contributor/editor, so I don't yet have permission to edit a semi-protected article like "Helicopter". There is a very good book that I feel should be added to the bibliography section. The citation is:

Chiles, James R. The God Machine: From Boomerangs to Black Hawks: The Story of the Helicopter. New York: Bantam Books, 2007.

Would someone who has full editing rights please consider adding this citation to the bibliography? Thanks.

Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What info do you intend to add from or cite using that source? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The early chapters include detailed information on early, failed helicopter designs. Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. That's book has been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be added to a Further Reading section unless/until it is actually used as a reference. Failed helicopter examples, unless they are notable (and I suggest here that notability means that the failure led to a success, such as Cierva's), should probably not be included, because there are so many more early failures than successes. --Born2flie (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome to move to Further reading section. One policy page (WP:Cite) seems to suggest a general reference is OK if not footnoted. But some other policy says an unused book should go in Further reading. I'll add a book with the intent to footnote to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uses

I was glancing this page and I noticed that heliportable exploration (reflection seismology/seismic exploration) is not on the page. I work in this field and helicopters are heavily used today. Just thought I would mention it and I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1-man helicopters

The Kamov Ka56, Dornier Do 32, Half pint helicopter are not decribed nor have articles. Information avilable at www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/dorn_do-32.php, http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1960_1969/dornier_do32_1961.html, http://www.unicopter.com/1009.html, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5465210978317572524

Please describe, make articles, ... 81.245.90.148 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You also forgot the Hiller YROE. But the single-place helicopters are a niche of helicopter development, that is they don't really contribute to advancing rotorcraft design, they usually draw on the available technology that exists to make them viable (or not). The Ka-56 was never developed and flown, so it is basically an airframe mockup waiting for an engine to be developed. "Half pint helicopter" was the newsreel headline, not the helicopter's designation or even a popular name. The newsreel is about the Dornier Do 32 and names it right in the video. Unless someone like yourself comes along to build articles about certain niche aircraft, they usually wait to be created. I will welcome you back anytime, to start an article about the Dornier Do 32 or the Kamov Ka-56! --Born2flie (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Without even mentioning Asboth?

It is a negligence even not to mention the name of Oszkar Asboth, one of the fathers of the first modern helicopters.

One of the many links, where there is more information: www.aviastar.org/history/index3.html To be brief, there should be no article about helicopters without his name mentioned. 16:46, 24 October 2009 User:80.98.95.131

References do provide a mention of Asboth. However, beyond the ability to lift off and touchdown, few references declare his fourth flying ship as successful in advancing helicopter design (by 1928, several aircraft had successfully lifted and landed vertically), and none mention his design choices contributing to future development. Flight International mentioned in a 1939 article that he had developed rotor blades with blade twist (at least for wind tunnel testing), but it is unclear if he is the first helicopter designer to do so. Which is a conclusion that would have to be made and shared in reliable sources in order to include in the article per WP:OR. The coverage in the Flight archives at flightglobal.com seems to be mostly hype over designs, speculating on the success of those designs that had yet to be built. No designs flew or were produced, so beyond the flight of the A.H.4., Asboth seems to have produced only designs and hype. --Born2flie (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

True that he had his business sense to promote his work, but it is an exaggeration that he produced only designs and hype. Although his real results were in aeroplane propeller development (see the link I'll share below), the signifiance of this in helicopters is also not negligible. Concretely, let me quote something:

"His measuring results offered the possibility of calculating the flying speed and take-off speed of helicopters in a reliable way. He set the rules forming the bases to design, calculate and produce propellers (rotors) for any power and rotational speed."

Just because there was no direct producing after these, the above quote still writes about a significant result. My source is more than reliable (library archive of Budapest University of Technology and Economics, which itself refers to 7 sources):

http://www.omikk.bme.hu/archivum/angol/htm/asboth_o.htm

He received international awards as well. So altogether, I think his results in aeronautics as a whole are significant enough to qualify his name to be mentioned in an article about helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.95.131 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 October 2009

I don't think it is an exaggeration. Several times he signs development agreements with foreign countries to produce his designs and none of them produce anything, however there remains a record of claims of performance and related expectations in media and print about his forthcoming designs, including claims to speeds upwards of 185 mph and 200 mph based on gross weight of the aircraft, all without any aircraft being built. I categorize that as hype. I believe such a conclusion is borne out in the later mentions of Asboth in Flight, which is much more tempered. The awards you mentioned are all for general aviation accomplishments or for achievements with fixed-wing aircraft, none of them were specifically related to any helicopter development, although the Paul Tissander diploma from FAI occurred on the 25th anniversary of the first flight of the A.H.4. Perhaps mention of Asboth is better suited elsewhere, such as Aerodynamics, Propellers or Helicopter aerodynamics, since his unique accomplishments in helicopters seems to be relegated strictly to mathematical calculation? --Born2flie (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Anthony, images in this article have previously been pruned when additions have begun to overwhelm sections. The Uses section is one such section that becomes easily overwhelmed. I previously placed a text comment note in the section in the hopes that we could eliminate this need to eventually trim this section, especially of images that are not composed or exposed as well as other images.

  Since the article section already has a picture of a helicopter conducting a hoist rescue, perhaps there should be a discussion as to which one belongs and which one should go, especially since you feel inclined to include the newer one. The image in question was also added to the Rescue article two minutes before it was added to the helicopter article and seems to be indiscriminate adding of an image only because it was related to both articles, despite its existence on the commons since December 2008. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Seaking heaven.JPG has been re-added but it doesnt seem appropriate for general article on helicopters when you cant see the helicopter (or winch) because of the glare. Support removing image without prejudice to finding another image that clearly shows a winch rescue. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• MilborneOne, File:HH-65C Dolphin.jpg in the Uses gallery shows an HH-65C conducting hoist operations in which you can clearly see the cable, the winch and the features of the helicopter. If another helicopter in civilian use could be found that showed the same detail, or if an iconic image with an appropriate license were available, I would support replacement of the image to illustrate the use of helicopters for rescue. --Born2flie (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Understood and agree with your statement. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• OK, get rid of File:Seaking heaven.JPG, if it can be replaced by an image that shows the winch and the winch line clearly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm new to wiki, but I noticed an error with caption for the picture File:Navy_squirrel_helicopter_acrobatics_display.jpg. The caption says "RAN Squirrel Helicopters during an acrobatics demonstration – notice how close the two helicopters are together". They are, in fact, not that close at all. It's an optical illusion created by [[[18]]] Minor point I know... (Ratsac (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

I have corrected the caption. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction

The movie Things to Come (1936) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028358/, based on the book Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells, uses a Helicoptor in its movie. I was looking at pictures of helicopters designed prior to and after 1936, and noticed a distinct change in the shape of architecture of the Helicopters. I can't say whether the movie was influenced by future concept designs or whether future concept designs were inspired, in part, by this movie, but I think it definitely adds to the richness of the article. I have a picture here http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7905/helicoptershapeofthings.jpg, which might be interesting to include on the site when referring to design. --Drdoom5081 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek Word edit

Hello, I would like to inform the editors that the Greek word «έλικ», used for rotor, is wrong. The correct ancient greek word is «έλιξ» with a «ξ» instead of «κ». The word «έλιξ» in modern greek language, is «έλικας». I include the definition found in the modern Greek Dictionary "Τεγόπουλος/Φυτράκης - Ελληνικό Λεξικό", (p.239 Δ΄ έκδοση - 4th edition, 1991), ISBN 960-7598-00-8, for the word «ελικόπτερο» (helicopter): ελικόπτερο (το) ουσ. [<έλιξ + πτερόν>]: είδος αεροπλάνου χωρίς φτερά, που κινείται με έλικα προσαρμοσμένο σε κατακόρυφο άξονα. Thank you, Christodoulias Athanasios, Greece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.50.146 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to update that, please provide a reliable source with the changed version in the text (WP:CITE). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek Word Edit text

The corrected text would look like this:

A helicopter is a type of rotorcraft in which lift and thrust are supplied by one or more engine driven rotors. In contrast with fixed-wing aircraft, this allows the helicopter to take off and land vertically, to hover, and to fly forwards, backwards and laterally. These attributes allow helicopters to be used in congested or isolated areas where fixed-wing aircraft would not be able to take off or land. The capability to efficiently hover for extended periods of time allows a helicopter to accomplish tasks that fixed-wing aircraft and other forms of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft cannot perform.

The word 'helicopter' is adapted from the French hélicoptère, coined by Gustave de Ponton d'Amecourt in 1861, which originates from the Greek helix (ἕλιξ) = 'spiral' or 'propeller' and pteron (πτερόν) = 'wing'.[1][2]

Helicopters were developed and built during the first half-century of flight, with some reaching limited production, but it was not until 1942 that a helicopter designed by Igor Sikorsky reached full-scale production,[3] with 131 aircraft built.[4] Though most earlier designs used more than one main rotor, it was the single main rotor with antitorque tail rotor configuration of this design that would come to be recognized worldwide as the helicopter.

I would also like to add that helix does not mean 'turning' but 'spiral' or 'coil', 'propeller' and also 'screw'. In this case, the correct meaning would be 'propeller' (of a ship or aircraft or helicopter). This information can also be found in the same page of the dictionary under the word "έλικας".