Talk:Mil Mi-17/Archive 1

Archive 1

Data

The data was quoted from http://www.aviation.ru/Mi/#17 by the owner of www.aviation.ru

Merge with Mil Mi-8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: Unclear concensus, but leaned towards merging. Merged by non-discussion participant in Oct 2006, but without any attempt to integrate the new content into the Mil Mi-8 article. Remained that way until re-split in June 2007 - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

In fact Mi-17 and Mi-8 are gropups of versions of this same aircraft. Russian army changed designation of many versions of Mi-17 to Mi-8. IMO those machines should be in one article like Su-17/Su-20/Su-22 Radomil talk 12:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

in fact :-) Mi-17 is export name of Mi-8 (just like Su-20/22 is export names for Su-17). it'd be wize to merge. --jno 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

and more precisely export name for Mi-8's with TV-3 engines :) Radomil talk 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Mi-17 should me merged into the Mi-8 article with this page turned into a redirect. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 15:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree,especially with an expanded section for the Mi-17 in the Mi-8 article. Edlin 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. The comments above are correct. Sure it could be merged if we have decided that this is all we ever want to know about the subject. There are others who could tell us about the improvements to fuselage structure and increased load limits, and the MI-117 version with modified systems for western certification authorities, an ongoing program. If this was a paper encyclopedia we could save printing costs by merging. With WP we can leave articles open so that future contributers may expand our knowledge. Meggar 04:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the Mi-8 article needs to clearly point to this Mi-17 page for more information (and to direct editors with Mi-17 information to write here and not on the Mi-8 page). A lot of these sub-types end up being nothing more than stub pages with 3 sentences and some specs. I've been doing a lot of stub expansion and it's hard enough without every minor sub-type getting its own page. My personal preference would be to merge the two pages for now and then, when (if) the Mi-17 section within the Mi-8 page really grows, they can be separated again. That way you get one detailed page (Mi-8 and variants) instead of one okay page and a Mi-17 stub. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

initially i've created this (Mi-17) page just knowing almost nothing about the wikipedia culture ;-) i just believed that every named instance should have its own page. nowadays, i believe that redirectors do good job for keeping things integral and clean. on the other hand, readers will not be affected by this merge, providing a mean (redirect) of searching by any meaningful name. hence, it's a matter of moderator will to make his work easier. why not? --jno 11:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. With the above statements it would be silly not to merge. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge the article is rather small as it is and would benefit from a merge as they are largely identical helicopters. The fact that we don't have printing fees is no excuse; merging saves on bandwidth. 24.9.10.235 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, merging causes more bandwidth, because both the 'old' articles have to be loaded, even when only one is needed. 3.50 5 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.100.6 (talk • contribs)

MI-17 isn’t some obscure minor version; it’s the current production machine. MI-8 was twenty years ago. Whatever the Russian military might like to call it, they haven’t ordered helicopters for a long time. All new ones are for export. If the factory says it is an MI-17 then it is. Meggar 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant designates all new helicopters of this familly as Mi-8, only export versions are still named as Mi-17, check it on official site of company. Radomil talk 11:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is good that we have that completely cleared up, the MI-8MT designation is internal to Russia and the MI-17 is for export. You have me convinced then that on Russian Wikipedia it should be called MI-8MT while everywhere else it would be logical to call it MI-17. But seriously now, we see from the above conversation that non-Russians tend to be misled by the MI-8MT name into assuming that it is just another minor sub-variant in a long list of suffixes left over from the cold war. Under that misconception it was reasonable to suggest a merge. A little research however shows that in fact the MI-17 is a large part of the present Russian aviation industry, a significant element in the world helicopter market, and an area of ongoing development. Consensus must be respected in these matters and so I am removing the merge-tag, trusting that our fellow editors will have the interest to confirm for themselves the status of the MI-17. Meggar 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Too fuzzy speculations for me. I dunno how the naming system relates to the Cold War. Anyone believing that Mi-8 (the second letter is not capitalized) is a "bad soviet", while Mi-17 is a "good russian" definitely should start his education from another source. The wiki links are capable (now?) to point to the specific part of the article (using the #-suffix). Hence, Mi-17 may exactly link (redirect) to Mi-8MT section of Mi-8 article. I hate the day i have the Mi-17 page created :-/ --jno 09:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is normal here Jno, after an article is started it belongs to everyone, it happens to us all. Enjoyment is found here after accepting that.

It was a clumsy mistake to use a capital “I”, but then the second letter is not an “i” at all. That is a concession to English and other speakers who can’t use the proper Cyrillic as it is seen in this link. [1]. The man’s name was Михаил Леонтьевич Миль so it should be Ми-17. A Google search shows only 76 matches to the anglicized version Mi-17, but 75000 to the Cyrillic version Ми-17, indicating that it is not unheard of in Russia. Does this kind of language issue give us a clue as to why they might have wanted to use an alternate non-Cyrillic numbering system for the rest of the world?

Sure thing, I'm a russian :-) --jno 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As for good/bad Russians, I have found the ratio to be about the same as for all other nationalities. Sadly, the stink of cold war propaganda still lingers in unlighted corners. But now it is time to get on with producing and exporting a lot of good new helicopters like the ones that come from the factory with Mi-171 on the serial number plate. It could not be a bad policy to defer to the wisdom of the builders who choose to market them as they do.

Yes, Mi-171 (and newer Mi-172) was just Mi-17-1 (and Mi-17-2, respecitvely; compare to I-15, I-15bis, I-152, and I-153 designations in 1930s), just like Mi-17 was Mi-8MT_for_export_use. It's a matter of marketing, not a policy. Plus, now we have several production plants (Moscow, Ulan-Ude, and Kazan) attempting to have own brands on merely same aircraft (Mi-8). I'd prefere to just ignore the legacy of the Cold War and give as exact data as possible. This means, particulary, that Mi-8 and Mi-17 (and all those Mi-17[12]) are just versions of the same aircraft, regardless of where they were built and how they are sold. --jno 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I don’t own the article either, so I ask for new comments from other users. The old comments above were made when the article was a short stub with no signs of improving. Could we hear from those actually interested in the subject, interested enough to do some independent research? A contribution to the article would be good evidence of interest, perhaps something about recent production figures. Meggar 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I ain't sure I understand the way the arcicle should be elaborated in... --jno 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose They are similar, but not the same. --DragonWR12LB 01:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

again, Mi-17 is an export name for Mi-8MT. What is here can be "same" or "similar"? It's just matter of naming. --jno 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By the same analogy, Su-27MK, Su-27K, Su-27IB and Su-27M should be under the Su-27 article because they have export names such as Su-30, Su-33, Su-34 and Su-35, respectively? I beg to differ. The Mi-8 and Mi-17 should be granted separate articles because they differ enough in dimensions, performance, and to an extent, role, to warrant a separate article. The same problem was ameliorated not only with Flanker derivatives, but with the F/A-18A/C and F/A-18E Hornets because the change in fuselage, radar suite and the remaining parameters literally mean a new plane, even though both are named Hornet for political reasons. Stealth 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, mein Gott...
Su-33 is a name for Su-27K, Su-34 is a development of Su-27IB, Su-30 is a domestic multirole interceptor (sounds strange? well, maybe), while Su-27MK is for export... Really great mess.
Definitely, all the aircraft of Su-27 family should be listed in a single page. But any of them having own index may have own article page, of course. What's a problem? --jno 08:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Both should be listed into one, just becuase Russia has a mess with number/name assignation we do not have to make a mess here. --DST05 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a russian invention, it's common marketing practice instead (I mean separate names for domestic/export products) :-) --jno 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should count opinions and make decision? I supose that we have consensus with one (mayby two) votum separatum Radomil talk 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It is simpler to keep the two helicopters apart, and it is easier to read two separate articles than to read one long one which will probably need to be split.Lan Di 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So were would You put for instant "Mi-8MT" aka "Mi-17M". Is it Mi-8 or Mi-17? Radomil talk 09:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is of no consequence what any of us would call it if we had the choice; we don’t. The model is what it says on the number-plate. If a helicopter has a plate saying Mi-8MT then it is an Mi-8MT. If an identical helicopter came with a plate saying Mi-17 then it would be a Mi-17. The lettering that is permanently stamped or engraved into the stainless-steel number plate affixed to the airframe is in no way influenced by our preferences or opinions. If it says Mi-17 then that is how it must be registered in the country where it is used. No force on earth will cause the bureaucrat to type it onto the form as anything else. There are the airworthiness certification authorities of various countries to contend with. These people do not care if it looks the same; they care about special adaptations such as redundant hydraulic systems and electrical changes that make them either allowable or not allowable in their jurisdictions. These considerations are very important as they make the difference between being able to import an aircraft or not, and for the builder being able to make a sale or not. Such variations result in the complexity of model number differences. Meggar 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow Meggar is right. --jno 10:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand if main diference is number on plate... claiming that Mi-8 and Mi-17 are different typpes is like treating every version of euro coins as different currency... Radomil talk 10:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got one more, better equivalent of this "plate solution" - Budweiser Budvar and Budějovický Budvar one beer, difference only in label. Radomil talk 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point is: there are both names Mi-8 and Mi-17, hence we must have two entries in wikipedia for them. And we do. The only question: do we need to keep separate texts for these entries? I believe, no. Just redirect Mi-17 to Mi-8 article, but preserve pictures, etc. --jno 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that redirect is obvious ;) Radomil talk 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --seifip 17:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Lahiru_k

• Support. I agree with Jno, a variant of the Mi-8 is still an Mi-8, even if you change its name. --Born2flie 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Page restored

Please see discussions at Talk:Mil Mi-8#MI-17? for rationale on why this page was restored. The short version: the Mi-17 and Mi-8T Mi-8M are a new variant of the Mi-8 series, and are covered here as such. The above discussion didn't cover this aspect, and only focused on the Mi-17 as an export designation. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Produced about 12,000[1]?

The article writes:"Produced about 12,000[1]".This number is absurd.Agre22 (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)agre22

Mil-18

I don´t agree on the description of the Mil-18 version, it was a stretched version with foldable nose landing gear, see page 46 red star volume 14. RGDS Alexmcfire

Executive Outcomes used them extensively in its operations in the Angolan Civil War. (Citation)

Hey guys, I have no idea how to do citations on wikipedia, therefore I do not want to mess up this article, but I have seen that a citation is needed for the fact that Executive Outcomes used Mil Mi-17 in the Angolan Civil War. I am reading the Book "Bloodsong! An account of Executive Outcomes in Angola" by Jim Hooper, HarperCollinsPublishers, 2002 England. In this book he interviews several Ex-EO employees who fought in Angola, and they very often talk about how much they used the Mi-17 during the fight against UNITA (Angolan Rebel Group). Maybe someone can use this information to do the citation needed. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.129.71 (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)