![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
For the record, first woman to fly a tiltrotor was Jean Tinsley. Trekphiler 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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 This is a historical reference not available in any other medium anywhere.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Merge completed. - BillCJ 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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 Lappos Nlappos 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nick Lappos 134.216.26.211 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4710186&c=AME&s=LANWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
For the record, first woman to fly a tiltrotor was Jean Tinsley. Trekphiler 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Merge completed. - BillCJ 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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 Lappos Nlappos 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nick Lappos 134.216.26.211 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4710186&c=AME&s=LANWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)