Talk:Piasecki HUP Retriever

Explanation for current name

Boy, this one was a doozie! I found TWO articles today on the H-25/HUP: once called Piasecki HUP Retriever, and the otehr called HUP Retriever. Both were moves from other pages, maybe more than once. Both had merge tags to H-25, a redirect page which has never had an article; to top it off, both tages were added by the same person!! This is why WIkipedia advises doing a search for a specific name before creating a new article.

By checking the History, I discovered that the HUP Retriever article was older, and so I moved the info from the other page to this one. There's not much to merge, but there are 2 specs, and with all the rest involved here, I haven't had a chance to check out which is accurate, or uses the right template. My guess after what I've seen today is that neither one will be right.

Now, on to the Renaming: So, what to do when there are conflicting names and standards for an aircraft? Make one up, of course, which is what appears to have been done for both articles already!

No!!! Check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft):

US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111. Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number: Curtiss P-40, Douglas DC-3.

Very clear, only, not so clear with this aircraft. (What a surprise, huh?) It has both a Navy/MC designation (HUP Retriever) and an Amry designation (H-25 Army Mule). The usual practice is to defer to the older and/or better-known name, which in this casse in the Navy one. But, in 1962, the Navy/MC aircraft were redesignated according to the Tri-Service system as UH-25s. Usually tri-service designations are given precedent, so Piasecki H-25 would be the preferred name, as both aircraft had different popular names. But of course, that page is a redirect, can't move it there; same with Piasecki HUP.

Rather that waiting out the whole Move request/delete/rename process, I split the difference, and went with Piasecki H-25/HUP. A little unorthodox, but the best solution available at the time.

I'm only intending this name as a temporary solution. If someone feels there is a better name available, let's discuss it, and see what we can come up with. As that choice is most likely a redirct page, we'll have to get a consesnus first, then find an administratior to move it. Oh well; such is life on Wikipedia! - BillCJ 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the lenghty explanation already here for why I chose this name, I don't appreciate it being moved again without discussion. I have reverted the move. If someone feels the article needs to renamed, please use the Move discussion process, as it is now obvious that someone objects to renaming it again! Thanks. - BillCJ 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another alternative - the aircraft spent most of its career prior to 1962, and under the old US Navy designation system, and current convention is manufacturer-designation-name - so it should be called Piasecki HUP Retriever, even if help from an admin is needed to implement it.NiD.29 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Need a couple redirects

As an anonymous user, I cannot create new pages, but one of you registered Wikipedians surely can. Please create Piasecki HUP-1 and HUP-1 and redirect them here. 68.72.10.51 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay - those are done! Suggestion: sign up for an account - then you can do more to make these articles even better! We always need more members in the WP:WikiProject Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rename. I will preserve the history of the target page at Piasecki H-25 Army Mule. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Piasecki H-25 → Piasecki HUP Retriever – match aviation project standard convention (@WP:AVINAME & WP:AVIMOS) of best known manufacturer - designation - name - helicopter was mainly used by the US Navy, who called it Piasecki HUP Retriever from 1948 until 1962. H-25 designation only applied to the US Army examples, which made up a small portion of those built (even if the Army designaton is chosen, the page should have been either Piasecki UH-25 Retriever (a designation used only from 1962-1964) or Piasecki H-25 Mule (US Army designation used 1955-1962) - name change discussed but not carried out because of over-ride needed as a result of a redirect history involving duplicated pages that were merged. NiD.29 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Piasecki PV-14 Retriever ? Both services used "Retriever" and the manufacturer designation is PV-14 -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that few references use the PV designations. The prototypes were PV-14s and PV-16s and the production aircraft were the PV-18s, designations which are rarely even mentioned or used, which fails WP:COMMONNAME, as much as I would be inclined towards the company names.NiD.29 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. But I note there is significant history at the target page. Our copyleft licences require this to be kept somehow. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029172611/http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/hup.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/hup.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Number Built

I cant seem get a total of 339 as shown in the infobox:

• 2 x XHJP-1 (Bu37976 and Bu37977)
• 70 x H-25A

msn 1 to 70 - (51-16572 to 51-16641)

• 32 x HUP-1

msn 1 to 6 (124588 to 124594)

msn 7 to 22 (124915 to 124929)

msn 23 to 32 (126706 to 126715)

• 234 x HUP-2

msn 33 to 154 (128479 to 128600)

msn 155 to 262 (129978 to 130085)

msn 263 to 266 (134434 to 134437)

Gives 338 if you include the two prototypes, anybody know where I have gone wrong ? anybody have a reliable source for 339? MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Boeing—which hypothetically should have access to the original records—claims 339 total. Swanborough and Bowers claim 165 HUP-2, which seems drastically wrong compared to other sources. My counts of the XJHP-1, HUP-1, and H-25A agree with yours. Here is what Joe Baugher's page has for the HUP-2 (excluding canceled contracts for obvious reasons):

• BuNo 128479 ... 128600 [122]
• BuNo 129978 ... 130100 [123]
• BuNo 134434 ... 134437 [4]

This is 249 HUP-2 aircraft. 2 + 32 + 249 + 70 = 353. Your count is closer to the Boeing number, off by only one. However, the shortcoming (15 aircraft, apparently BuNo 130086 to 130100) is exactly equal to the number of new aircraft supposedly delivered to the French Aeronavale, but I cannot find a good source for this, so it may be coincidental. What's your source? Carguychris (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I used https://www.helis.com which gave the msns and John Andrade's U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909 for the serial numbers. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've found two sources that claim the existence of a third prototype, but other sources only show two XHJP-1 bureau numbers, and no consulted source shows a serial number for this mysterious alleged third aircraft. Perhaps it was never given a military serial number; it's another aviation research rabbit trail for me! Also, I noticed that Baugher has a note that I overlooked stating "130086/130100 cancelled," so I retract my theory that there were 249 HUP-2s and that these 15 aircraft went to France; I presume that the Aeronavale aircraft are all intermingled elsewhere in the US Navy HUP-2 BuNos, and either Baugher simply hasn't referenced all of them or there weren't actually 15. In summary, I think it's come down to whether there were 2 prototypes (338 total) or 3 prototypes (339 total).Carguychris (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carguychris - did you ever figure out which quantity is correct? Antheii (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Antheii, unfortunately no. I gave up a couple of weeks after I posted that. I have not found a thorough scholarly history and/or comprehensive manufacturer's serial number listing for Piasecki Helicopter that might clear this up. Virtually all scholarly references to the company seem intertwined with U.S. military history and don't discuss whether it even had any civil helicopter activities that could explain the existence of aircraft that never received a military serial number. Carguychris (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

N183YP Accident

I recently removed the "notable accident" as I could see why it is noteworthy. User:Carguychris disagrees and has added the accident back. I still cant see anything with the accident that makes it noteworthy, nobody notable was killed and didnt involve a change in regulations. It may also suffer from recentism. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the accident should be notable because it destroyed the only flying example; however, this minor edit skirmish ultimately points to what I believe are shortcomings in the notability criteria for light aircraft accidents. I'll move the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Carguychris (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that me removing it because I dont like it and you adding it back in and then a move to discussion is fairly civilised for these parts and I would not characterise it as "a little edit skirmish". MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that! Carguychris (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

None of your suggestions at the other page actually mentions the destruction of the only flying example as being noteworthy enough to add to the inclusion advice as you suggest here! MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. "Flyable examples were sufficiently rare that the accident effectively causes the type to be withdrawn from service, either because the sole airworthy example was destroyed, or because all other airworthy examples were grounded afterwards for precautionary reasons." Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh note I have no objection to the fact it was the last one flying getting a sentence in the operational history narrative, just not the accidents section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable. Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)