Talk:Bell 412

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/commercial/bell412.cfm

Here info for this page if anyones is interested

Contents

[edit] CH-146 Griffon

No reason for that to be a separate article. I support that it be merged into this article. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • oppose -- It is traditional to have separate articles for the military and civilian versions of aircraft. I can think of a dozen examples, and cannot think of a single example where an aircraft had a single article for the civilian and military versions. No advantage to this merge occurrs to me. And the person who proposed it hasn't advanced any. Maybe they presumed it was obvious. Well, it is not obvious. -- Geo Swan 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the CH-146 page contains: a statement that CH-146 is the Canadian designation of the Bell 412 and a set of very incomplete specifications that don't differ from the Bell 412 because (surprise!) CH-146 does not differ from Bell 412. It is the same helicopter with a different designation. There is no "tradition" of having separate pages for Civilian and Military versions, and it's certainly not in the WP:Air Mos. There are pages where this is the case because there is actual content at both pages that would make for a very long page if combined. Bell 412 has barely any content and CH-146 has none at all. A redirect and a properly written Bell 412 page that adheres to the MoS would do a better job. - Emt147 Burninate! 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • support -- I agree with Emt147 - MilborneOne 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • weak support I see no problem with this merger, but admit I don't know very much about the subject. heqs 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Support - Other helicpter acrticles have the same page for both the military and civilian variants. I suggest making the Grifon and secion of the 412 acrticle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.84.15 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 May 2006

  • support - While the -146 is unique in avionics and other details, it is at heart a Bell-412. [Alan Browne, Lorraine, QC, 2006.08.13]
  • Support - The CH-146 only differs from the Bell 412 in avionics and other slight details. We also must take two other things into account. First, a great number of nations use the Bell 412 within their militaries, and most of which refer to it as the Bell 412, and these aircraft share an even greater compatibility with the CH-146 than civilian models. Secondly, Canada has a history of giving the aircraft peculiar designations. Thus the F/A-18 becomes the CF-18, the F-5 Freedom Fighter the CF-116 Freedom Fighter, the AgustaWestland EH101 becomes the CH-149 Cormorant, and the SH-3 Sea King becomes the CH-124 Sea King. It goes without saying that these aircraft while in Canadian service have undergone upgrades and modifications not done to many of their European or American counterparts. But this does not make these aircraft into completely different aircraft. At most it would make them variants. They contain the same airframe, engines, etc. And thus not being completely different do not warrant different pages, only a section within the main article. It is also interesting that many other Canadian designated aircraft have their own articles, such as the CF-18 Hornet and the CF-116 Freedom Fighter while other, such as the CH-149 Cormorant have only a section within a larger article, or even less. This suggests that this argument goes far beyond this page in particular. Puddhe 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Oppose"

I do not support the merging of the CH-146 with the Bell 412. While the Griffon is substantially similar to the 412HP from a mechanical perspective, it is truly and significantly distinct as far as avionics, including mission-management systems, are concerned (in Bell parlance, it is actually known as the 412CF rather than 412HP). In addition, it is flown by the Canadian Forces under the authority of its own Canadian Military Airworthiness Type Certificate (like all other CF combat-capable aircraft). The implication is that its configuration can and does change solely to meet CF operational requirements, independently from other 412 variants. Examples include the complete integration of surveillance/intelligence sensors into the mission-management systems, as well as the actual and eventual fitment of air-ground weapons. I propose those differences justify a separate article.

  • Concur. The CH146 Griffon is not merely another model B412. Not only is it properly designated B412CF as noted above, but it is more properly based on the 412 EP, not the HP. Additionally, the CH146 has a dual MIL-STD-1553B digital databus-base avionics management system that is used by no other 412 variant, including the AB412. What would the goal for a merger be? Save a few hundred kilobytes? The page for the CH146 is links with several pages from the Canadian Forces and Air Force sites that are specific to the CH146 Griffon's membership in the Canadian Air Force inventory that have nothing to do with civilian Bell 412 SP, HP and EPs. Regards, D.T. Kingston, Canada.
  • Concur. The standard configuration for EMS on a 412EP allows for 3 litters while the Griffon configures for up to 6 litters. There seems to be significant differences that would result in a much lengthier article on the 412 and may serve to confuse people who are looking for 412 or Griffon information. (Born2flie)
  • Concur - keep mil and civilian versions seperate Akradecki 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Oh good! We now have 4 volunteers to work on expanding the CH-146 page so it can stay separate. Cool!! Good luck.
Btw, I support merging smaller articles about the same basic designs together, even if they are technically different in many ways. The civil 204s and 205s are all covered under the UH-1 Iroquois article, while the UH-1N/Y are on both the UH-1 and Bell 212 pages. But once we have enough info to make a moderate-sized article, I'm not opposed to giving them their own pages.
All the models I just mentioned probably deserve their own page, but there's just not enough content already here to justify doing it now. The argument over whether the S-92 and H-92/CH-148 versions should be the title of the one article was solved by splitting them up. Both pages are fairly small now, but still longer than the CH-146 page. -- BillCJ 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag removal

Looks like there's no consensus, and this has been up for some time, so I'm removing the tag. Akradecki 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The merge with CH-146 did not go through. Is there enough info available to expand this article? -Fnlayson 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of the (military) operators,

Finland is mentioned and this is not correct, there is not a single one militaty 412 in finland and never has been, only borderguard has few 2-4 cannot recall the correct number, but these are not military machines nor is the institution using them military but rather kind of limited police organisation which is under control of the ministry of interior and not the department of defence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).