Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

Article Name[edit]

The UH-1 is mostly known as the Huey, and that is it's official USMC designation. I propose that the name is changed to Bell UH-1 Huey. --Conor Fallon (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The USMC's versions, the UH-1N and UH-1Y, have their own articles. In almost all cases, WP US military aircraft articles use the official name even when nickname is more common. Also, do you have a source for "Huey" being the official USMC name? DOD 4120.15L lists "Iroquois" as the official name. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is on the whole line, so it would be fair to include USMC versions. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article is on the single-engine military versions, which does include the USMC's now-long-retired UH-1E. The UH-1N and Y versions are mentioned, but covered on their ownb pages. All of wich has nothin gto do with the status of "Iroquois" as the official name. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

27 February 1991 shoot down[edit]

An IP editor has now added this incident three times and I have removed it twice. I am now moving the discussion from my talk page over here where it belongs. This is a combat loss, one of about 5000 UH-1s lost from various causes. It doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH and to my mind is non-notable and should be removed from the article. I note that User:Fnlayson has already trimmed it to match the cited ref and tagged it as of questionable importance. Moreover the ref cited looks from the main page like it is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This text would be OK with a better ref and as part of a paragraph on use during the Gulf War/Desert Storm and later combat/training use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are UH-1s flying around in my area near the Army base here. I saw one this morning, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesnt appear to be anymore notable than all the other thousands of combat loses, should be removed, as the addition was challenged it should not have been restored without a consensus here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I see.. you're wrong: "it doesn't involved fatalities". The crew was killed in action, so it fully fits the standard. Please just write the pilot name on google before removing any material or challanging it, saying "self-published". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter that somebody was killed it happens in combat and is not really notable, I suspect the number of UH-1s lost in fatal combat losses is not a small number but none of them are encyclopedic including this one. Also note that you have to gain a consensus to include it as the addition was challenged it can be removed straight away pending that consensus to add it. So really you need to make the case that this combat loss is far more notable than any other accident or incident related to the UH-1 and then get agreement to include it from other editors on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonono, you gave a rule WP:AIRCRASH, it totally fits the rule, so quit and stop messing around. Let's not use double standards here uh? Eventually if someone is going to add huey by huey and this acticle becomes too big you should start something like this: Boeing 747 hull losses, just to give you an idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to go back and read AIRCRASH again. For military crashes to be included in type article they have to involve fatalities and hull loss of damage on the ground and involve a change in rules, regulations or procedures. It has to satisfy all three criteria or it isn't notable. As I mentioned with over 5000 UH-1s lost over the years this guideline is in place specifically to prevent the type articles from being filled up with thousands of incidents like this one. Also the ref cited is not a reliable source as it is self published, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
198 please remember to be civil, the guideline says that for small military aircraft that the individual killed has to be notable, which means that at least one of the crew members has to have a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Having interacted with armyaircrews.com before on the accuracy of their information, I would like to point out that:
  • joebaugher.com lists that same serial number as an RV-1D on the same date being shot down during a MEDEVAC. Interestingly, an F-16 is also listed as being shot down that day.
  • Aviation Safety Network also lists the same serial number as an RV-1D, but lists the aircraft being operated by the USAF, with an Army unit designation and the names of the crew as listed on armyaircrews.com. Besides getting the number of fatalities versus occupants wrong, it lists four crew even though the RV-1D only has a crew of two.[1]
  • According to helis.com, serial numbers for Army UH-1Ds produced in 1964 ranged from 64-13492 to 64-13901.[2]
  • Consider that by the time of the incident in question, all U.S. Army MEDEVAC aircraft are UH-1V, possibly still UH-1H and carrying much later year serial numbers than 64.
  • It is a matter of congressional record that CWO Hein was a pilot with the 507th Medical Company and died during the conduct of a MEDEVAC mission in Kuwait on 27 February 1991.[3]
Whether the aircraft was shot down or crashed is not adequately established, and Hein is listed as both a KIA and a non-combat death. I think there is significant doubt as to the circumstances surrounding the loss of the aircraft, as well as the identity of the aircraft. There is probably some bit of confusion with 3 helicopters being reported as shot down that day. --Born2flie (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Good grief, an RV-1D is a Grumman OV-1 Mohawk!! I think this tends to prove that the ref cited is not reliable. We seem to have a pretty good consensus here to remove the paragraph in question, unless there are further thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay a few days have passed with no further input, so I think we have a consensus to remove this para under WP:AIRCRASH and also for being referenced to an SPS source. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is so crystal clear, just remove the questionable part and move on. On the other hand, WP:BURDEN is the operating keyword for the party who keeps re-adding the questionable content. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree! It has been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Germany[edit]

German UH-1D
The 352 licensed German UH-1D variants built by Dornier between 1967 and 1981 saw service with the military (Bundeswehr) by the German Army and German Air Force as light utility as well as search and rescue (SAR) helicopters. In addition the German Federal Police (Bundespolizei) made extensive use of the UH-1 before replacing them with newer Eurocopter EC135 helicopters.[citation needed]

A citation that the Bundespolizei, or better Bundesgrenzschutz (BGS = former designation) was using the UH-1D and the Bell 212 can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bell_UH-1_Iroquois_operators#cite_note-16 and http://www.airventure.de/BGS05/BGS_05_Bell_212_GS_Nord.jpg or http://www.airventure.de/BGS05/BGS_05_Bell_212_GSG_9_auf_Kufen.jpg (from http://www.airventure.de/BGS05_01.htm)

However, if they made "extensive use" of them is another question as the BGS also operated other helicopters at the same time like the Aérospatiale SA 330/332 "Puma". Hope this helps. 85.176.61.222 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I just went through them and none of the refs you have pointed out support the text. Let me see if I can find a better ref. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a partial ref. We still need one for the police use and replacement by the EC135. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WHOA... "the Iroquois"?! NOT that I have ANYTHING against such name, but... !![edit]

Hello All - Ummm... since WHEN was the Bell UH-1x "Air Cav' " helicopter EVER called/known as "the Iroquois"?!! Not that I have ANYTHING wrong with the (name) "Iroquois"... HARDLY. A very proud people. However, NEVER have I heard the Bell Huey referred to as "the Iroquois"!! And... I'm "of the Era" (and RELIED on those sweet birds, as well as those bravest-of-brave 101st Air Cav' pilots). Wow... why didn't this "original" name seem to "stick" with these legendary/iconic troop transport craft? Maybe... "too many SYLLABLES for some folks'?  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomphus69 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)