Jump to content

Talk:Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cefoskey (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 2 December 2008 (→Sikorsky strike). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Marine One

So, does the January 28th announcement that the Marine One fleet will be replaced with the US101 mean that the H-92 is no longer in contention for the Marine Corps contract? Or does the USMC maintain a separate fleet for routine use? Geo Swan 20:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The VXX contract was specifically for the Marine One fleet. The USMC did not intend to purchase any for routine use. BillCJ 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea King

There are two paragraphs commented out in the main article, that read, in part:

the S-92 Superhawk is an obvious choice for the Canadian Air Commands deployements aboard Canadian Naval ships especially the fact that the S-92`s cabin is high enough for the crew members to stand upright (a luxury on long missions) unlike the EH-101.

Actually a cabin tall enough for the crew to stand upright was an official requirement for the Maritime helicopter. So it was not a luxury. Both the EH-101 and the S-92 have cabins tall enough for the crew to stand upright. The cabin of the Sikorsky Seahawk, the Maritime version of the blackhawk, is not tall enough for the crew to stand upright. -- Geo Swan 21:40, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

WP:RM

Move to Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk?

  • I believe this is the naming practice for these articles. 132.205.45.148 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links to the civilan version (one in the introduction, one in the "See Also" section) redirects back towards this article. Kind of silly, imo. :) I'd make a stub of that article instead, but frankly I'm too much of a WP newbie to know exactly how. So consider this a suggestion. :) MMad 22:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and broke up the article into military and civilian articles, using the S-92 page so it is no longer a redirect back to H-92. Used the same content, just edited out the info that wasn't relavent on each article. Both articles may still need clean-up, and will need work to fit the Aircraft page standards.
After doing this, I discovered that a CH-148 Cormorant stub existed. It did not have any links in the H-92 article to that page. As the content was redundant, I changed the page to redirect to the H-92. As more info on the CH-148 becomes available, and after it enters CF service in a few years, more info should become available, and justify having a separate article for the CH-148.
Note: the H-92 Superhawk is Sikorsky's name for the military variant of its S-92; it's not a US military designation. If the USAF ever orders the H-92, it will likely receive a new designation, probably in the low 70's range. If the US does purchase the H-92, then I'd recommend creating an entry for that version (and for the CH-148), and merging the rest of the H-92's info back into the S-92 article. -BillCJ 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate CH-148 Cyclone page

I broke up the article into military and civilian articles, using the S-92 page so it is no longer a redirect back to H-92. Used the same content, just edited out the info that wasn't relavent on each article. Both articles may still need clean-up, and will need work to fit the Aircraft page standards.

After doing this, I discovered that a CH-148 Cyclone stub existed. It did not have any links in the H-92 article to that page. As the content was redundant, I changed the page to redirect to the H-92. As more info on the CH-148 becomes available, and after it enters CF service in a few years, more info should become available, and justify having a separate article for the CH-148. --BillCJ 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dash in CH-148

Someone has been removing the dash from CH-148 in the article. According to the official Canadian Forces' site on the aircraft[[1]], the CF uses the dash. --BillCJ 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct form is CH148, without the dash, as per Canadian Forces Administrative Orders [[2]]. Unfortunately, popular usage has added the dash, including in official sites, however, recent directives have been to remove it. --142.167.144.161 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone in the MND or CF should inform the webmaters of the CF aircraft sites, as they all use dashes in the designations. More than likely, the webasters were still in high school when the directive was issued in 1993. - BillCJ 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is why they have started to remind people of the CFAO, but it will take time to get them all corrected. --142.167.144.161 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once the CF Cyclone page has been updated to reflect the orders, then we should change the article, and move the page. Until then, it might be hard to justify changing it, as the dasash is still used popularly. - BillCJ 01:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move again

Naming conventions of WP:AIR is that when a commonly used nickname exists, the manufacturer should be omitted. This page should be at H-92 Superhawk. Karl Dickman talk 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be changed, but not to H-92 Superhawk. H-92 is a company, not a DOD, designation. Convention on US civil aircraft is to use manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage, but to try to avoid using name and number unless it is clearly needed for some reason. Therefore it ought to be SIkorsky H-92, as I really don't see a reason for the current long name.
However, a case could also be made for moving it to CH-148 Cyclone. To my knowledge, the Canadian CH-148 is the only military version that has been sold at this point. It's really a matter of who to give preference to, the company of the CF. There would be no question if it was in US service to use that designation. However, I think the H-92 is as well known as the CH-148 designation, if not more so. - BillCJ 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BillCJ, the best place for this article right now would be at CH-148 Cyclone. Patar knight 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could take a poll to move the page to CH-148 Cyclone. An admin would have to perform the actual move, as that page is an existing redirect. If the US does ever order the H-92 (unlikely at this point, but one never knows), we can set up a page for it under its DOD designation. If any other militaries order the H-92, they can be placed under CH-148 for the time being (and moved to the US page if that ever happens). - BillCJ 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough. --Born2flie 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

Please expand the Usage section that I made. I'm not too knowledable about the CH-148, so its short. I'm sure a lot more information can be added. Thank you. Patar knight 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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


Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk → CH-148 Cyclone — It is perceived that the Canadian use of the S-92 military variant is more accurate, or at least more likely to be common than the company's marketing name. As it is, the current article name does not meet the naming convention for aircraft. Born2flie 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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


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

This article has been renamed from Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk to CH-148 Cyclone as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page retooling

After we moved the article to this page, some editors bagan changing it to reflect only the CH-148 variant, and not the H-92 as on the original Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk page. Given that the H-92 has not been sold to any other military users, I agreed with this, and moved most of the info specific to the H-92 back to the Sikorsky S-92 page. There may still be some items that refer to the H-92 rather than the CH-148. Feel free to change these, as another editor has done today. - BillCJ 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CH-148 Pic

I have gotton permission from the author of the CH-148 J.PEG for use, please do not remover! thank youSkydog1531 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to provide proof of the release. WP doeasn't play around with copyrights. There is no harm rmoving the image for now while you get things straightend out. I'll have an admin contact you to tell you what you need to do. But until WP has legal proof, you need to stop adding the image to the article. It's a good way to get yourself blocked. - BillCJ (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture posted, with its compression artifacts and motion blur, actually looks like a still-frame from the first flight video which was posted on the Sikorsky intranet shortly after the maiden flight. Is the quoted "photographer" the person who was shooting the film? The listed "Sikorsky" photographer name (Terrance Jonhas) does not appear in the UTC/Sikorsky corporate directory. --Cefoskey (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I can confirm that the picture was not a stillframe and was an actual photo. I believe this is the original. --Cefoskey (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky strike

Sources from 2007 say the Sikorsky strike delayed delivery from November 2007 to January 2008. However, 2004 articles state that delivery was to be no later than November 2008. Somehow the delivery date seems to have changed. Currently, Sikorsky and DND are not discussing delivery, only that DND has not opted to impose late penalties (up to $36 million). If anyone has a better reference for the fluctuation in the delivery timeline between 2004 and 2007, it would be appreciated to clarify this seeming mistake in the cited references. --Born2flie (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original delivery date on the CH148 had always been November 2008, which was 4 years from the contract award. On 9 Jan 2008 the first delay was announced moving the new delivery date to 9 Jan 2009 (the strike occurred in 2006, and its effect on the CH148 program specifically is arguable). In the summer of 2008 it was announced that the delivery would be delayed further, with no mention of a new agreed upon specific date. The Canadian DND has basically asked SAC for up to US$200 million in upgrades to the helo (mission system, possible engine and landing gear upgrades, all outside the original contract scope), which is why I am assuming the harsh rhetoric regarding the older dates has been toned down since Jan. --Cefoskey (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current reference used states January 2008. While that is likely to be a typo, the article is from 23 January 2007, so the date confusion ensues. Flightglobal.com doesn't clarify the issue any,[3] and neither does Rotor&Wing.[4] So, what is needed is another reliable source that spells it all out accurately. Got references? --Born2flie (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only reference is myself, so I suppose its "original research". I'm a Sikorsky engineer and was on the H92/CH148 program full time from 2004-2007, and still support production. However, I've since moved on to other SAC development programs. --Cefoskey (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From SAC press releases here and here --Cefoskey (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. today announced it has signed contracts worth C$5-billion with the Government of Canada to provide and maintain 28 Sikorsky H-92 maritime helicopters. The new H-92s will replace Sea King aircraft currently in service with the Canadian Forces and deliveries are scheduled to begin in late 2008.
We are on target for the first flight of Canada's new Cyclone in November 2007, and for deliveries to begin in November 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone&oldid=255466820"