Talk:Leonardo AW609

Untitled

Can the BA 609 really be considered the "civil version of the Osprey" ?? It has a completely different fuselage, empennage etc. Osprey has thrice the max. weight, twice the range !--Iediteverything 12:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is the idea. When I did some work with Boeing on the V-22, the 609 team worked fairly closely with them. It's more along the concept of the Osprey, not the capability. They wanted an executive jet that can use helipads in major cities. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub

Born2flie: Shame when there is so much more information available out there than what is presented here. --18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Major changes

Rolled my sandbox into the main article. Added an infobox based on the UAV (the airplane infobox misses lots of details) and tried to convert lists into prose. There is still a lot of work to be done. - Davandron | Talk 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work overall. The reason the standard info box doesn't have all the information is that the Project Aircraft wants all the details in the Specifications tremplate. This decision was made before I began editing articles here. I am currently adding a specs template, hope to have it finished tonight. However, I'm not personally opposed to you using the UAV-type box, but you would need to talk about it on the WP:AIR talk pages first to get a consensus to use it. (I believe the UAVs fal under Project Military History, not WP:AIR, hence the diffrent box.) Thanks. - BillCJ 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Images

The picture that appears in the main page is of Prototype #1 in airplane mode flight, which I uploaded from the Bell/Agusta website. However, there is another good publicity photo which I also uploaded and might find a good place in the article:

Thanks. Finding and uploading pics is not one of my strong suits, though once they are on Wiki, I do fine with them. I don't usually get involved with copyrights and fair-use issues on images, but I think these you have posted are fine. However, there are Wikipedians who fill their idle time by checking all images to see if they should "really" be used or not, especially in articles which have no other pics :) . They may cause some problems, but I hope not. This article definitley needed pics. - BillCJ 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Found a picture of the second prototype (N609AG) in helicopter mode on the Agustawestland website. It shows off the color scheme choosen by the Italians. Image:BA609AG helicopter mode.jpg - Davandron | Talk 15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the picture was detected as an orphan, because it hasn't been placed on the page. I'm not sure how it would best be incorporated. Take a look and if you have any suggestions, please post them. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the pic. I forget how aggressive these image-nazis can be about fair-use pics. I meant to add the pic, but it slipped my mind. Sorry. - BillCJ 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to remove Image:BA609AG_helicopter_mode.jpg, because it shows the same aircraft (reg.no - N609AG) as other photos and has much poor quality. Mottld 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed both of the above linked images from the article. Now that we have some freely released images from the Paris Air Show, Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines dictate that such images be taken out. Hopefully someone will soon be able to take a photo of the other prototype. And folks, please don't denigrate those that work towards removing fair-use image violations...remember that Wikipedia is not aiming to be the prettiest encyclopedia, but the most free, and that entails getting rid of non-free images wherever possible. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issue - I should have thought to remove the fair-use images myself, but have been busy with several article projects, and neglected to pay attention. As to denigrating those who work towards removing fair-use images, it's not what they do, but how they do it, that statements such as above are used. Too often I find a rushed job in removing an image that later proves to be PD, or a legitimate fair-use image with sources, just not necessarily done in a certain way preferred by some, but in which all or most of the info was there. In addition, too many images are speedied, and no notice is placed on the article or it's talk page, where users who did not upload the pic could address the problem. I have seen several image deletions reversed by admins in the past two weeks because the deletions were done too hastily. There are several editors who do take the time to inform editors via the article talk page of the problems with images, but they are few and far between. Yes, fair use is a big deal legally, but that doesn't mean the job should be hastily done, or that some kindness and consideration can't be used. I do appreaciate the time and effort you've spent here to do the job right. I hope others will follow your example. - BillCJ 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't always take time to send notifications, but usually that's only in clear-cut cases of misuse or where the image removal is unlikely to be contested. However, I do understand what you are talking about. The "overeagerness" does get tiresome at times. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I think I've completed the missing specification data from the AW website. If people think it's complete the tag can be removed. FitzyJ (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Rotor diameter:" listed twice, with one value blank? Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem occurred because it was classified in the template as a rotorcraft, which causes the template to assume that a single rotor's diameter represents the widest dimension of the vehicle. I'll rework it to solve the issue, probably be presenting as a standard aircraft rather than rotorcraft. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've realised that won't work either. I'm going to replace the template with straight text, since there is no method of using the template that doesn't leave an unsightly mess. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The V-22 uses "aircraft specifications = copter", and it seems to work fine with special additions such as Wingspan and Width with rotors. Bell XV-15 also uses that template, whereas Bell XV-3 uses "aerospecs". Mil V-12 uses {{Aircraft specs, where wingspan works fine - maybe that template doesn't distinguish between plane or copter. Carter PAV has some display issues. Perhaps we should include an aircraft template called "Special" without rules. TGCP (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it "works", but look at the kludge of parameters in the V-22 article. Also, when changing format, I found a number of conversions that were simply wrong. The manual conversion issue has always been one of the things I disliked about the {{tl|aircraft specifications}} template...it's completely unnecessary these days. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The specs say 275 knots and 25,000 feet as maximum. This says 306 knots level at 30,100 feet, at 1:05pm. TGCP (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I would not consider FlightAware auto-generated figures as reliable sources. We have no idea whether they are accurate or not. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AgustaWestland_AW609&oldid=608980680&diff=prev

So it makes a large difference from conventional helicopters. Hcobb (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So what? What you wrote doesn't say that, and neither does the cited article. It does state it is easily overcome, which you oddly failed to mention. And tiltrotors are not helicopters, conventional or otherwise, so I really fail to see the pointbof this being added other than it seems to fit your tiltrotors-are-bad POV so common in your editing on the V-22 page. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What would these "anti-tiltrotor" edits be?

• Pentagon Details Israel’s MV-22 Osprey Package
• DIRCM on CV-22
• V-22 Osprey - Boeing (covers FLIR)
• (Israeli) aircraft are to be optimized for special operations and rescue missions
• And then last year I added link to 352d Special Operations Group page

So what exactly is the bias in these edits, which all seem to be technical details from well regarded sources?

Obviously I'm not referring to those edits, as you well know. It's too bad this edit wasn't of technical details, of which there are plenty in that article, which you could have added instead of what you did add. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The technical details of the reviewer's test flight was that the aircraft performed like a helicopter and turboprop, as expected, except for that one glitch, not previously mentioned in the article. Hcobb (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is probably a reasonable point to mention, but it needs to be explained more to add some context to explain why this is worth mentioning and what is done about it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It hovers steadily above 20 feet, and the wing downwash is there at any hover height, so it's more likely to be a ground resonance issue or similar, but so far no ref for that. Helicopters usually hover nicely close to the ground, not sure how important it is to be able to do that at 10 feet rather than 20 feet? BTW, the pilot article has different dimensions than the wiki ? TGCP (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So move it to the tiltrotor page and note it as one of the tradeoffs that make tiltrotor better at short field operations while tiltwing is better at vertical operations? (Do we have a winged helicopter page to tie this all into?) Hcobb (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiltwings have higher disc loading than tiltrotors, so they should be less suited for hover. Compound helicopter is a halfway article for combos. TGCP (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move this page

I would like to move this page to "Leonardo AW609" Thermofan (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)