Jump to content

Talk:Bell 222/230

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Bell 222
(Redirected from Talk:Bell 222)

A109 comparisons ?

[edit]

I removed the A109 comparison chart as it is non-standard on aircraft articles - of the more than 5000 aircraft articles on WP, I can't do not know of any such comparisons tables in the aircraft articles, not even the Airbus or Boeing airliner pages. As to the text I removed, it was totally unsourced, OR and mostly commentary. Even properly sourced, I doubt this could be kept as written. Also, there were several other intermediate twin helicopters that came out around the smae time as the A109, yet those aircraft were not singled out. Quite odd. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear sir, since i am not holding Bell and A.109 in my garage, the OR accuse is laughable. The issue A.109/Bell 222 is not my guess, it's a well documented fact. My sources, that you simply don't care to ask for, stated cleary two things:

1-Bell 222 was meant to face A.109 (and Eurocopter, but they were slower), but its engines were a real junk, among the worst ever made. This led the Bell 222 to sobstantially fail, i don't know what happened with Bell 230 and further, but they had not much success either.

2-another opponent VIP fast helicopter was Sikorsky S-76 Spirit, elegant and fast, but also bigger and heavier than A.109, so it was for long time underpowered and it was not that successful either.

As for 'comparations', well councorrence is made by comparation, and the pratical results too. If you check http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history i see a lot of 'comparations'. Too bad, and NOT too well, that comparation data table are not present in wikipedia (while, STRANGELY ENOUGH, there are a lot of tables in other website, magazines, books etc etc). So what's the problem to have these in wiki-articles? Why i should search every article, then write datas, then compare them and finally draw a conclusion? Why, let's say, in Spitfire article i cannot find let's say Spit Mk.XIV datas compared to Bf-109K, FW-190D and P-51D? If other publications have them, there is a reason: instead to fill with links (with a slow connection, believe me, they are not 'user's friendly') atleast write a datatable and then let enjoy the reader!

If you want to make a table with other helicopter of this class, fine. I have no problem with it, even if cleary, the Bell 222 is a sort of mirror-effect vs A.109 (cleary the 'target'). We could add, instead to 'link' to comparable aircraft, simply the characteristic of all tree (and MBB/Eurocopter equivalent, if there are).


Model 222 222B 222U 230 A.109 Power S-76
Announced 1974 1982 1982 1990 1990 ?
First Flight August 13, 1976 1982 1983 August 12, 1991 ? ?
Certified December 1979 August 1982 April 1983 March 1992 ? ?
Delivered 1980 1982 1983 November 1992 ? ?
Seats Front: pilot + one.   Main: 4–6 (depending on seat types)
Maximum 10 (pilot and 9 passengers)[1]		 2+6 2+12
Height 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m) 12 ft 2 in (3.71 m) 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m) 11 ft 6 in (3.50 m) 14 ft 5.8 in (4.414 m)
Fuselage length 42 ft 2 in (12.85 m) 42 ft 11 in (12.78 m) 42 ft 3 in (12.88 m) 42 ft 3 in (12.88 m) 52 ft 6 in (16.0 m)
Rotor diameter 40 ft (12.2 m) 42 ft (12.80 m) 36 ft 2 in (11.00 m) 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m)
Length overall 49 ft 6 in (15.1 m) 50 ft 3 in (15.32 m) 42 ft 9 in (13.04 m)
Engine (2x) Lycoming LTS-101-650C-3 Lycoming LTS-101-750C Rolls-Royce 250-C30G/2 2× 567 hp or 571 hp (423 kW or 426 kW) each 2× Turboméca Arriel 2S2 turboshafts
Power (2x) 618 hp (461 kW) 680 hp (505 kW) 700 hp (520 kW) 2× 567 hp or 571 hp (423 kW or 426 kW) each over 670 horsepower (over 500 kW) each
Max speed 130 kt
(149 mph, 240 km/h)		 135 kt
(155 mph, 250 km/h)		 140 kt
(161 mph, 260 km/h)		 177 mph/154 knots/285 km/h) 155 knots, 178 mph (287 km/h)
Climb rate 1,580 ft/min (8.03 m/s) 1,730 ft/min (8.79 m/s) ~1,600 ft/min (8.13 m/s) 1,930 ft/min (9.8 m/s)
Service ceiling 12,800 ft (3,901 m) 15,800 ft (4,816 m) 15,500 ft (4,724 m) 19,600 ft (5,974 m)
Hover ceiling ~9,000 ft (2,743 m) 10,300 ft (3,139 m) 12,400 ft (3,780 m)
Fuel Capacity 188+48 US gal (710+182 L) 188+122 US gal (710+460 L) 188+ US gal (710+ L) ?
Range 324 nmi
(372 mi, 600 km)		 378 nmi
(434 mi, 700 km)		 386 nmi
(559 mi, 900 km)		 378 nmi
(434 mi, 700 km)		 599 mi (521 NM, 964 km) 345 nmi (639 km) w/ 30 minute reserve
Empty Weight 4,555 lb (2,066 kg) 4,577 lb (2,076 kg) 4,537 lb (2,058 kg) 5,097 lb (2,312 kg) 3,461 lb (2,000kgs) 7,005 lb (3,177 kg)
Maximum Take-off Weight 7,848 lb (3,560 kg) 8,250 lb (3,742 kg) 8,400 lb (3,810 kg) 11,700 lb (5,306 kg)
Serial Numbers 47001 – 47099 † 47131 – 47156 47501 – 47574 23001 – 23038 ?
† The first five were prototype/test models

NW: all datas are taken from wikipedia.en.

So, it's easy understand that something, with Bell, went wrong. Bell was bigger than A.109, and despite its horsepower, it was inferior in any aspect: ceiling, climbing, speed, endurance.

This is definitively interesting for the reader, that, since there is the section 'comparable aircrafts', then he really should be forced to open those links, especially, -i remark- if that user has not provided with a fast connection (mine is 56 kb, in truth 4-5). --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. take care, i am not an A.109 fan, but still, i want to understand what went really wrong with Bell, and the unability for this great firm to stop the concorrence, after having teached to the world how to build successfull helicopters. The unsuccessful designs like Bell 214, 222, 230, the difficulties with AH-1Z and MV-22, the unbelieveable quitting from the AB.139 project, well, all this really stunned me, and in fact, leaved the market to Eurocopter (not too bad, they were indipendent from the start) and Agusta. This is absurd to me: why Bell let Agusta (that started with Bell licenses) to erode its own market? Why Bell never built a Model 212 or 412 in ASW version, despite Agusta built with success the AB.212ASW? Why Bell never built a successor for AH-1? Or wasn't unable to cope with A.109s', the first Agusta model passed in production? Actually, US helicopter builders, at the best, are offering revamped older designs (CH-47, AH-64, Bell 206, MD-530), the newer one are failures (RAH-66, S-92, Bells), and i simply cannot understand why.

Surely, in this situation, the Bell 222/230 inferiority to Eurocopter MB.105 and A.109 (the supposed adversary, Bell was meant to be a really fast helicopter, MB.205 not) was a milestone in this sad decayment for US firms.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet
Comparisons are not needed in an encyclopedia the reader can look at the various articles if they wanted to make a comparison hence the comparable aircraft section. If you had a reliable reference that Bell used another helicopter type in the marketing effort then that could be mentioned in the text along the lines that the Bell 222 was advertised as a replacement for the Foo 123' most other comparisons are just original research and are not encyclopedic. Also note that using the figures above the 222 and 109 are clearly not in the same class or generation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong answer, then i'll re-pose the question: why i must open several webpages to find out what i need? When and why an encyclopedia has no need with comparations? And if yes, then explain me why there are 'comparations' between Bell 222/230, but it's not needed to have them with Bell 222, Bo-105 and A.109?
Do you realize that your statement is not rational? And not user-friendly? I have a very slow connection, some billions users have a slow connection as well; forcing me to open several more links is a waste of time and an insult for the 'user's friendly' conception. So your statement is cleary absurd, based on YOUR perception. Try to use a slow-fast connection and then tell me if it's disturbing to handle wikipedia pages, open one after the other. Lukily, written pages (of professional works, not wikipedia) are differently able to help the reader to excract info, instead to pose them in a real mess of datas, without any rationale, and clear linking.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a lot of assumptions and I dont appreciate being told that I supply the wrong answer and that my reply is absurd, this is a discussion and everybody is allowed their point of view please remember WP:CIVIL in your replies. I will answer some of your points:
  • why i must open several webpages to find out what i need? - because you are trying to use the encyclopedia for original research, that is comparing two or more random types of helicopter this article is about the Bell 222 and variants so does not include data on every helicopter type.
  • slow connection you have no idea the speed of another users connection you should not presume that I have a high-speed connection.
  • why there are 'comparations' between Bell 222/230 - because this is an article about the Bell 222 family which includes the Bell 230.
  • not needed to have them with Bell 222, Bo-105 and A.109 - because this is not an article about the Bo 105 or A109 or any other helicopter.
  • so in summary this is an article about the Bell 222 not about comparing random helicopters - please also see my first reply and also please have a read of WP:CIVIL before you reply. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1- i could make 'original research' also comparing Bell 222/230, they are different models, even if they are in the same article.
  • 2- i don't know if you have a slow connection, but i know that i have it, and i don't like to open one article after the other. This is not exactly 'user friendly', even if, surely, is meant to raise the wikipedia accesses (more page opened, higher internet rank).
  • 3- 'random helicopters'? No. I don't compare Bell 222 vs CH-47, because they are not comparables. The article itself calls for those comparable aircrafts, so the best way it's post their datas too. If not, you should delete any mention about the 'europe concorrence' and 'comparables aicraft'.
  • 4- it's not that civil and fair impose the 'praxis' to other contributors and delete edits, even if they are meant to improve somewhat the artiles and the data access (and furtherly, not answer and even delete the messages in the talk page calling it rubbish). This attitude is one of the reasons that leds many wiki-contributors to quit, but nobody cares, after all wikipedia is growing up, even if not in the best possible way. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bell 222/230. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_222/230&oldid=1199800244"