Talk:Tiltrotor

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

Helps please

Hey, you know those things you often see in fictional war stories, with the propellor embedded in the wind facing upright? What're they called? Tiltrotors? --80.6.145.230 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them referred to as "fan wing", although the FanWing article is a different concept completely. Akradecki 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've added cleanup tags because I feel the author's got a chip on their shoulder and they're constantly comparing tiltrotors to helicopters and constantly telling us that helicopters are overall better. While it would perhaps be valid to have a "comparison with other V/STOL aircraft" section, it's inappropriate in the main segment - things like the second and third paragraphs are what's needed here - facts and description so we can get an idea of what a tiltrotor is; not comparison with other aircraft, and far less conclusions on these comparisons (again, at least not in the main body of the article). -- Scott Wilson 14:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trivia?

For the record, first woman to fly a tiltrotor was Jean Tinsley. Trekphiler 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Advert?

The external link removed by Mr. Wilson was to the only hour long documentary ever made on the history, evolution, technology and performance of tiltrotor aircraft. It contains interviews with experts ranging from the V-22 program manager to NASA X/V-15 test pilots and FAA certification and rulemaking authorities, some now-deceased. The link is no more an advert than those to Bell or Boeing, both commercial enterprises. The documentary was produced in 1987 during the height of the XV-15 program and is illustrated with footage of the X/V-3, X/V-15 and animations of the then as yet un-built V-22 Osprey. It even has images of possible future civil tiltrotor airliners. This is a historical reference not available in any other medium anywhere. I respectfully request you leave the external link intact.

Aerospacenews.com 02:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a fantastic documentary, but you still have to pay to get it. The whole point of external links is to give readers access to extra information, something the Boeing page gives for free - indeed, this is its primary purpose. This link does not; it's prime purpose is to get people to buy your product. Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Scott Wilson 10:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- From the very reference you cite: "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

- Surely the finishing schools in that example charge their students. Tiltrotor and The Future is the only documentary ever made about the evolution of convertiplane technology, how tiltrotor became the solution for transport (vs. attack) aircraft, the major test programs, problems and outlook. If someone is looking at these articles they clearly are interested in detailed information. Again, this is a 60 minute documentary. It was not sponsored by Boeing or Bell. It is not a commercial. It is a unique information resource. Books cost money. Trade show white paper proceedings often cost money. The fact that one must buy the video if they want to is not an excluded criteria nor a reasonable test in this situation. You are denying those looking for more information on this topic the ability to find a singular resource. Furthermore, there is a link on the V-22 (see Israel considers V-22 acquisition) article to Janes with four paragraphs of information (less than half the article) followed by this text "End of non-subscriber extract." Aerospacenews.com 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The finishing schools are because they are important examples of finishing schools; one can see how they present themselves; you get that information for free. Aerospacenews.com is not an important example of a tiltrotor - the equivalent for tiltrotors or the V-22 would be the manufacturers. I'm not saying that your documentary is a commercial either - I'm sure it's not - it is the commercial for the documentary that is the problem. Similarly, the Jane's link provides some information - including some that is unavailable in the article - while yours provides none. Finally, at Wikipedia:External links note that item ten of 'links to normally avoid' says that you should not link to a website that you own or maintain, as there is a clear conflict of interests, notwithstanding section six which says that you should not link to sites which require payment for the relevant content to be accessed. --Scott Wilson 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support: The Quad Tilt Rotor article (complete with misspelled title) is very short, and at this time the concept is really just a footnote in tiltrotor history, and not an actual aircraft. The article has existed for just over a year, but is still very small. Until such time as a company seriously puts forth a proposal (beyond an article in tech magazines), this is not likely to change. In addition, the Tiltrotor article is not that big itself, so there is plenty of room for its expansion in the future. - BillCJ 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for now...though I have a feeling this will need to be demerged at some point. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The article may well need to be de-merged at some point, but I don't beielve it will be in the next 4-5 years. With as much touble as opponents of the V-22 (for "saftey reasons") have given, I can't see a QTR being developed for the military any time soon. Ten-20 years from now, it's quite possible though. - BillCJ 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be merged, at this point there are to many others. Would that mean lumping the XV-15 the V-22 and the BA-609 as well as this aircraft all on one page? Each of these aircraft has its own merits. While it's true that this aircraft, probably will not exist as a even a prototype for at least 10 more years I think it still deserves a page. Plus it definately has merit as the most original and fastest of the jhl concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.25.75 (talk • contribs)

If you want to vote against the merger, you should place Oppose:, a short reason, and your signature in the above section.

The XV-15, V-22, and BA609 are each covered in depth in their own articles, because they are actual designs that have been flown. That's also why they are mentioned in this article, but there are not entries on them as such, just a list to their articles. We aren't talking about merging those articles in here, just the one on the Quad Tiltrotor. In addition, the QTR is not yet an aircraft, even on paper; it's just a concept, and as a tilt-rotor concept, I believe it deserves lengthy coverage here. Once there is greater commitment to designing and building an actual QTR, then by all menas that actual design should get its own article.

I agree with you on the JHL, but is there even an article on the JHL here yet? I haven't come across it as yet if there is one. Because it covers a wide range of technologies, a good article would be worth having. It could cover some of your points on the QTR that might not fit here. But as far as I know, right now the JHL isn't really active, though DARPA is testing various high-speed vertical lift concepts for later application, including in the JHL program. - BillCJ 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

With a vote of 2 to 1, I am proceeding with the merger. I see no reason that this article cannot be incorporated whole into the Tiltrotor article, as it is still only 7 lines long. Neither article is sourced, so I will be placing an {unreferenced} tag here. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. - BillCJ 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added Back Detail

I added back some detail about the cost of a tiltrotor's speed. While Scott Wilson complains that there was too much comparison, without some, there is no framework for the reader to understand where the tiltrotor stands on the vertical flight spectrum. Remove the comparisons and the piece becomes a puff-piece, where tiltrotors do all things for all people. The ideal piece should show the advantages and disadvantages against similar and competing technologies. For example, helicopters carry about half the payload of airplanes with the same empty weight and power. So somewhere the spectrum should show that airplanes are fastest, and carry the most, tiltrotors are intermediate in speed (half that of an airplane) and they have 25% of the payload of an airplane, but they can hover and take off from small areas without great infrastructure needs. Helicopters gain back payload somewhat (to the 50% level) but are the slowest yet. Nick LapposNlappos 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tlitrotor is half the speed of an airplane?? A jet airplane, yes, but not a prop plane, to which a tiltrotor's speed is very comparable. How much of the other info you've provided is the same type of comparision? We can't tell, since you have not provided verifiable sources for your additions. Therefore, another editor has reverted your edits, with my full support. - BillCJ 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Nlappos' edits, because they were completely uncited. It is critical that you provide citations with your statments. At one point, you changed information in a referenced sentence. Did the reference have the original or your material? It makes a difference. If you change material in a cited sentence, but don't change the cite, that makes it look like the cite supports your statement, when if fact it doesn't, which presents as serious integrity problem as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. And when you do refer to a reference, don't write "in reference number 1", but rather use the ref tags. If you need help with this, see WP:CITET and WP:FN. Also, please don't sign your article additions. Signing is only for talk page additions. Akradecki 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would wish someone would READ the references before they arbitrarily delete the addition. I originally posted reference 1 months ago, which clearly cites the fact that the V22 tilt rotor has half the payload of the CH-53E helicopter (and that both have the same power and mpty weight). It further states that the CH-53E helicopter has 1.6 times the transport efficiency. Additionally, I put in the discussion section the speed concept, which is important for those of us who edit to understand the "big" picture, admittedly that speed ratios are too loose to use in the article itself. Must I re-post my previous edits, or would one of you who deleted them re-insert them after you have bothered to READ the reference?

Nick Lappos134.216.26.211 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth comparing tiltrotors to the helicopters they are intended to replace - the CH-46 has an empty weight of ~15,500 lb and a max t/o of 24,300 lb. The HH-60 family is a much later generation helicopter, and it's possible that second- or third-generation tiltrotors will offer superior performance. Right now it's like comparing an A330 to a 707 or Comet. ericg ✈ 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No clear consensus to merge Tiltwing here. Also there was more support for not merging it. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The Tiltwing article is very short and should probably be placed in a section within this article. They are basically the same kind of aircraft, the only difference being how much of the structure moves. -Aubri (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging them into the same page is a good idea, but I wouldn't want it to be Tiltrotor any more than Tiltwing. I'd suggest a new Compound rotorcraft article. This could then include other sparsely-described subcategories, such as those having a compound power train (e.g. the Fairey Rotodyne (AIUI some definitions of a "compound rotorcraft" actually focus on the power train rather than the fixed-plus-rotary wing configuration). Tiltrotor and Tiltwing would then become redirects. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to call the article rotating propellers so there's no confusion. (Though both of these articles use the term proprotors, which isn't used for anything else.) Hcobb (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of adding other "corner-case" categories to a combined article. I suggest Hybrid Rotorcraft as the article title, defined as vehicles which rely on dynamic lift generated by both powered rotary wings and fixed wings, since that can encompass tiltrotors, tiltwings, compound rotorcraft, and miscellaneous experimental VTOLs, but excludes autogyros. (It is necessary to specify powered rotors, because some early autogyros and rotorkites had regular airplane wings too.) Though, really, any list of aircraft types needs to include a "miscellaneous weird stuff" category for all the odd experimentals. -Aubri (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. I believe that there are enough tiltwing aircraft to expand the tiltwing article, and that the tiltrotor should discuss more of the BA609 development, as well as other European tiltrotor designs. However if merging wins out, I think Hybrid aircraft would be more suited to combining the two articles in question. In regards to compound rotorcraft, Dr. J. Gordon Leishman (a professor of aerodynamics and a Technical Fellow of the AHS International), in his book, Principles of helicopter aerodynamics, defines compound rotorcraft more in line with the basics of the ICAO definition of rotorcraft, in that it is primarily a rotorcraft which also incorporates lift or thrust structures of fixed-wing or other rotorcraft to provide added capability. The primary lift, however, is still being provided by the rotor. The AH-56 Cheyenne, Lockheed XH-51, Piasecki 16H, Sikorsky S-67, and CarterCopter are all examples of compound rotorcraft. Leishman splits from the ICAO definition of rotorcraft, in that he also considers tiltwing and tiltrotor as high-speed rotorcraft, which I think would also be a better choice than compound rotorcraft. --Born2flie (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'll point out that any merger really needs to be to proprotor. That is used for both tiltwings and tiltrotors and nowhere else and it is a general term of disparagement used by critics of the concepts. Hcobb (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, a proprotor is a piece of equipment, not a type of aircraft. Are these critics using it as synecdoche? -Aubri (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could ask the same about "tiltrotor", "tiltwing" and even, in common usage, "jet". All are that nice Greek wordy-thing - describing either the part or the whole according to context. Anyway, the consensus seems to have shifted from tiltwing vs. tiltrotor to a catch-all article summarising the wacky stuff. I originally lumped this stuff in the rotorcraft article, under the heading "Hybrids and compounds". Would Hybrid and compound rotorcraft be too wordy? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also opposed: tiltwings have a very different history than tiltrotors. The only tiltwing I'm aware of suffered high vibratory loads at the wing root so that the craft itself spent much of its lifting power on the structure rather than the cargo. Tiltrotors have greater theoretical potential as well as more current craft. The media coverage of the Osprey has not been good, but eventually I think tiltrotors will be viewed positively where tiltwings are going to be relegated to "other historical attempts at aviation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annahoward (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large Civil Tiltrotor (LCTR)

We should add to those listed here and also create a standalone article for the Large Civil Tiltrotor (LCTR) / Large Civil Tilt Rotor / LCTR2 from NASA.

http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Research/Programs/LCTR.html [has four cites]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120618-designing-the-future-helicopter

-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bell X-22

The Bell X-22 image is missing text in the body of the article to tie it in. Lacking sufficient round tuits this morning to add it myself. --J Clear (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have added a wikilink to the Bell X-22 article, but there are other tiltfans such as Doak VZ-4, Project Zero, Cadet so a section on tiltfans should be made. TGCP (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tilting intermediates

There are at least two projects which blur the line between tiltrotor and tiltwing. One is the Karem OSTR, the other is AgustaWestland. Where do we place these? TGCP (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. I believe the regulatory authorities now classify all such craft as powered lift, so Talk:Powered lift might be the best place to discuss this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tiltrotor. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Mono Tiltrotor" section, possibly include mention of failed concept elsewhere in text?

It looks like the only effort in this direction was a small study that never got past scale model stage, and has since died. The topic's own article is quite out of date, and many links lead to the inventor's dead website. When that article was originally created the study was ongoing, but it apparently failed to result in a full size aircraft. I don't believe it is notable enough a design to include in the article as it currently exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.3.193 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I would at most mention it in passing after the first mention of the Bell X-22, where it says nearly all are bi-copter designs. Note there is not section on quad-rotors or other distinct layouts. 135.180.3.193 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

second that, remove or significantly tighten up. The description isn't even clear about the configuration and the fairly obscure references are no longer readily available. Gjxj (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]