This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"notably the side-by-side rotor scheme"
I should say this wasnt "innovative", but rather direct rip off from German Focke-Achgelis Fa 223. And one could actually claim the whole aparatus was such.
http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://www.luftarchiv.de/hubschrauber/fa223.htm http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fa223.html http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Fa_223/DI52.htm http://www.vrtulnik.cz/fa-223popis.htm
The V-12 was a true inovation in aviation. The won prizes and patents are clear proof for this. The inovation was not based in the rotor arangement. Many other helicopter had used it before both in Germany and Russia. The true inovation was how the problems related in controlling such a giant were solved. In the end it was an ingenious piece of engineering, but there was simply no use for it when it came out. It is the same faith which happened to so many other great aircraft. BAC-TSR, Avro Arrow, Dornier Do 31 and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olilux2 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the first prototype of the helicopter's been turned into a flying hotel or something. See http://hotelicopter.com/ 75.61.108.90 ( talk) 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest even to remove reference to this from the current article: the images of the hotelicopter's suites are equal (not just similar) to the one of YOTEL ( http://www.yotel.com/). Hoax, marketing or fraud? 145.97.221.41 ( talk)
This is definitely a hoax... The specs listed on the site are completely impossible. If they were actually accurate the "hotelicopter" wouldn't be able to fly as they have added 20 feet to the rear end of it and more than doubled its height. Plus if they really had streamlined it and added four turbofans the top speed would likely be faster than the original's not slower.
64.180.20.17 (
talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The web page address for the "Hotelicopter" has been changed to ( http://aprilfools.hotelicopter.com/) So I am certain it is a hoax. A very slick hoax. It's nice to imagine what the Mil Mi-12 would look like if it were designed today - envisioned as a flying hotel. Personally - I don't like it. I would rather fly aboard the "Spruce Goose". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash591 ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the 'hotelicopter' from the article - again, as it never actually existed. Centrepull ( talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a major fault that the main image in the article doesn't show the scale of the aircraft (i.e. there is nothing to clearly compare its size to in the picture). Either the picture should be changed for one that does (e.g for this photo from the same series, the best I could find in Commons), or this photo or a similar one should be used later in the article to illustrate the scale, which is one of the main notable features of this helicopter. Opinions? Centrepull ( talk) 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same image? I linked to File:Mil_Mi-12_aug_2008_2.jpg, an image of the Mi-12 with a MiG under its wing, clearly showing scale. Where's the 'big round something' you mentioned? Centrepull ( talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the claims that the V-12 designers won the Sikorsky Prize, as the Sikorsky Prize was not created until 1980 and as of 2011 has never been awarded (The prize is offered to anyone who creates the first human powered helicopter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 ( talk) 11:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been corrected. I neglected to consider the possibility of a human powered V-12 prototype capable of time travel. Please excuse my ignorance. 66.108.243.166 ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Moi
I'm not all that clear on it, but aren't the specification lines: "Hovering ceiling in ground effect: 600 m (2,000 ft) Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 10 m (33 ft)" printed backwards? Ground effect (aerodynamics) seems to refer to an effect that increases lift on an aircraft flying within its own wingspan or rotorspan of the ground. I can see how having added lift would give you an increased hover ability, but 2,000ft is well over the rotorspan of this craft, so I don't see how that can be "in ground effect". It would seem more logical if the numbers were reversed. .45Colt 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"notably the side-by-side rotor scheme"
I should say this wasnt "innovative", but rather direct rip off from German Focke-Achgelis Fa 223. And one could actually claim the whole aparatus was such.
http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://www.luftarchiv.de/hubschrauber/fa223.htm http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fa223.html http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Fa_223/DI52.htm http://www.vrtulnik.cz/fa-223popis.htm
The V-12 was a true inovation in aviation. The won prizes and patents are clear proof for this. The inovation was not based in the rotor arangement. Many other helicopter had used it before both in Germany and Russia. The true inovation was how the problems related in controlling such a giant were solved. In the end it was an ingenious piece of engineering, but there was simply no use for it when it came out. It is the same faith which happened to so many other great aircraft. BAC-TSR, Avro Arrow, Dornier Do 31 and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olilux2 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the first prototype of the helicopter's been turned into a flying hotel or something. See http://hotelicopter.com/ 75.61.108.90 ( talk) 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest even to remove reference to this from the current article: the images of the hotelicopter's suites are equal (not just similar) to the one of YOTEL ( http://www.yotel.com/). Hoax, marketing or fraud? 145.97.221.41 ( talk)
This is definitely a hoax... The specs listed on the site are completely impossible. If they were actually accurate the "hotelicopter" wouldn't be able to fly as they have added 20 feet to the rear end of it and more than doubled its height. Plus if they really had streamlined it and added four turbofans the top speed would likely be faster than the original's not slower.
64.180.20.17 (
talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The web page address for the "Hotelicopter" has been changed to ( http://aprilfools.hotelicopter.com/) So I am certain it is a hoax. A very slick hoax. It's nice to imagine what the Mil Mi-12 would look like if it were designed today - envisioned as a flying hotel. Personally - I don't like it. I would rather fly aboard the "Spruce Goose". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash591 ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the 'hotelicopter' from the article - again, as it never actually existed. Centrepull ( talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a major fault that the main image in the article doesn't show the scale of the aircraft (i.e. there is nothing to clearly compare its size to in the picture). Either the picture should be changed for one that does (e.g for this photo from the same series, the best I could find in Commons), or this photo or a similar one should be used later in the article to illustrate the scale, which is one of the main notable features of this helicopter. Opinions? Centrepull ( talk) 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same image? I linked to File:Mil_Mi-12_aug_2008_2.jpg, an image of the Mi-12 with a MiG under its wing, clearly showing scale. Where's the 'big round something' you mentioned? Centrepull ( talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the claims that the V-12 designers won the Sikorsky Prize, as the Sikorsky Prize was not created until 1980 and as of 2011 has never been awarded (The prize is offered to anyone who creates the first human powered helicopter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 ( talk) 11:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been corrected. I neglected to consider the possibility of a human powered V-12 prototype capable of time travel. Please excuse my ignorance. 66.108.243.166 ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Moi
I'm not all that clear on it, but aren't the specification lines: "Hovering ceiling in ground effect: 600 m (2,000 ft) Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 10 m (33 ft)" printed backwards? Ground effect (aerodynamics) seems to refer to an effect that increases lift on an aircraft flying within its own wingspan or rotorspan of the ground. I can see how having added lift would give you an increased hover ability, but 2,000ft is well over the rotorspan of this craft, so I don't see how that can be "in ground effect". It would seem more logical if the numbers were reversed. .45Colt 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)