Talk:AgustaWestland EH101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AgustaWestland EH101 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

Contents 1 Table 2 Should be in Separate Article 3 Images 4 Clean-up 5 Danish 101s to RAF 6 Merlin 7 Unit Cost 8 Name - EH101 9 Two engines bad, four engines good, three engines worst! 9.1 Cormorant troubles 10 Re: 11 Delivery Dates 12 Merlin in Infobox 13 Danish EH101's Grounded Because of broken engine axle that caused an emergency landing 14 Canadian E101/Cormorant has lacked spare parts since 2004 and has many quality problems

[edit] Table

You are aware that we're trying to get away from tables, right? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:27, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

[edit] Should be in Separate Article

I removed the italicized section below since it has very little to do with the EH-101 and relates more to Sikorsky and Canadian procurement practices. Plus, the tone is not neutral, and allegations (e.g. "bungling", "political interference") are presented as simple statements of fact. This info (along with similar points in the H-3 Sea King article) should be consolidated under a seperate article relating to the Sea King replacement saga, and POV should be eliminated as much as possible.

Controversy again followed this procurement process, centering around several points:

• Political and bureaucratic interference in the military's procurement process, resulting in the separation of the airframe from the onboard avionics. A similar separated (and bungled) procurement process was seen during the CP-140 Aurora purchase in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Separation of the airframe permitted the government to look at alternatives to the previously fiscally (and operationally) attractive EH101.

• The alleged unwillingness of Paul Martin's Liberal government to select an aircraft which had been expensively rejected by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, a few years earlier; the Liberals were frequently accused of rigging the selection process against the EH101.

• Nearly $1.2 billion in industrial offsets by Sikorsky; the price per aircraft was lower than EH Industries could offer. This because Sikorsky, having never sold the S-92 military model, was willing to significantly subsidise the Canadian purchase.

• The inability by Sikorsky, some say, to prepare the S-92 for military use. It should be noted that the S-92 is merely an enlarged version of an already-flying maritime patrol helicopter, the SH-60 Seahawk, and that Sikorsky has a long tradition in the maritime patrol field.

• Allegations that Sikorsky would be unable to meet the contracted delivery deadlines, causing Canada to go even longer without an adequate navy helicopter.

Also removed:

The Canadian government refers to these machines as AW 320s, carefully avoiding the EH101 name.

The gov't has never referred to them by this name. --Aardvark114 28 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Per the fair-use image policy (Always use a more free alternative if one is available), I removed a huge swathe of non-free images from this article. We already have two freely-usable images, which is enough that there's not much justification for having a large number of unfree ones. Shimgray | talk | 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:There is a beautiful picture of an EH101 on the Japanese Wiki here [1]. It is probably a Tokyo Police unit, but I can't read the Japanese captions. The pic is public domain (that part is in English), but I don't know how to get it over to the English side to be used, or to the Commons. Can someone check this out? Thanks. - BillCJ 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I figured out to do it a couple of months ago. Pic has been in article since then. - BillCJ 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Can the editor who added the clean-up tag please be more specific abut what needs to be changed? THanks. - BillCJ 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. - BillCJ 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danish 101s to RAF

The RAF purchase of Danish 101s has been confirmed. I've added a source from AugustaWestaland detailing this. The portions in the RAF and Danish sections on this need to be rewritten, but writing copy is not my strong suit. I will try in a few days if nothing has been done (and then you'll know I'm not just being lazy!). Thanks. - BillCJ 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should have a mention in both the RAF and Danish AF sections (in case people only want to read about either the UK or Denmark and not the whole article), with the detail in RAF section...imo. Chwyatt 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you tell me why would you like to repeat that info for the third time? It's posted twice already in Operational history section under Royal Air Force and Royal Danish Air Force labels. Piotr Mikołajski 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin

Is it okay to think the aircraft was named after Merlin (bird), not Merlin (wizard)? Gimme the source if possible. Thanks in advance, --marsian 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been the Merlin as long as I recall knowing of the program, but I don't ever recall a specific source for the name being named. I do know the old Merlin engine was for the bird, though.

There isn't really any obvious precedent to follow - the general transport helicopters of the RAF before were the Lynx and Puma, both animal names from a single set, and the Chinook, an American name; in the RN, it replaced the Lynx (as before) and the Sea King, another American name. There has been a general fondness for bird names in the past - Harrier, Hawk - but no standard naming approach that I'm aware of; "Merlin" for the bird rather than the person seems likely, but not obviously correct. Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shimgray. I thought the same thing about Puma... Perhaps it's best to ask the RAF. --marsian 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did ask the RAF and she kindly added "(Bird of prey)" on the Merlin page. To tell the truth I didn't imagine they'd even respond to my question, but it was quite the contrary in reality. --marsian 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a book for everything; I just spotted the bizzare-sounding Names with wings: the names and naming systems of aircraft & engines flown by the British Armed Forces 1878-1994 (1995, ISBN 1853104914) in the library, and would you believe it does in fact give us the derivation?

E H I (Westland); MERLIN; 1987; Helicopter

[Maker's classification system: Birds]

So, yes, it is for the bird. However, it seems to be a name chosen by the manufacturer rather than the RAF - or the FAA, who were the original purchasers, and as such not taken from any naming scheme. Shimgray | talk | 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your search. What a nicely named book :) True, I missed Fleet Air Arm... Anyway, I never imagined it was named by the manufacturer. This truth rather surprises me. <<Off-topic>> By the way this is the first time I find "maker" meaning "manufacturer" in English. I've thought in English you don't use "maker" in such meaning... You do, but less frequently, perhaps? --marsian 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer would be more usual; "maker" implies a degree of individuality, or of craftsmanship, whilst "manufactured" implies it's one of many churned out by a factory. But "maker" is correct, if unusual, I guess. Shimgray | talk | 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation, Shimgray. --marsian 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unit Cost

Any possibility to have a general unit cost figure, as per comparable aircraft to this one? Thanks, 220.235.12.35 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Heyman's Armed Forces of the United Kingdom 2004-2005 quotes £755m for 22 Merlins purchased by the RAF in 1995, and an undated £1.5bn contract by the RN for 44; their sea trials began in '93, so presumably around then. So that's roughly £34m apiece as of 1995; something like £45-50m apiece after counting for twelve years inflation? Shimgray | talk | 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

EH101 Unit Cost is highly variable. The Civil varint built for the Tokyo Metro Police was the cheapest ever built and came in at around £13M. The RN variant (Merlin HM Mk 1) was the most expensive, as the development costs for the maritime mission system were wrapped up in the overall price Apacheeng lead 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name - EH101

Comment on the below section in the start of the article

"The designation "EH101" is a typographical error that stuck: the aircraft was originally designated EHI (Elicottero Helicopter Industries)-01"

It is true that the original name was EHI 01, but got mis printed early on as EH101. However the EHI was European Helicopter Industries, based in Farnbough. A joint company owned by Agusta and Westlands. EHI only ceased to exist 2 years ago when AgustaWestland was formed, and the EHI corporate identity was wrapped up into AW.

This is the reason I have changed this Apacheeng lead 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In a 1984 encyclopedia EH 101 is already mentioned, i don't know nothing about EHI-01.--Stefanomencarelli 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EH101 project traces back to 1980. See http://www.whl.co.uk/history_eh101.cfm for official description of the beginning. This unofficial site, presents the "Elicottero Helicopter" theory which leads to the possible clerical error. I think a quick check on a ‘80s Jane’s, should give the historical truth.--EH101 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two engines bad, four engines good, three engines worst!

There should be a criticism section. Essentially nobody wants the 101, because having three engines onboard are much maintenance and cost hassle. It costs arm and leg to keep them flying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.68.145 (talk • contribs)

Fair point about cost - but it would need to be a bit more of a thorough (and cited) analysis than above. And a four engined helicopter??? I can't think of any examples. Also can you really "criticise" the aircraft in this regard? The designers responded to a requirement and the 3 engined EH101 was what they came up with to meet it. Mark83 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you would be glad of three-engines when operating the Merlin of the back of a frigate in bad weather! MilborneOne 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm always amused at such criticisms, which seem to only be focused on finding ANY reason to be critical. THe Super Frelon has flown for over 40 years with three engines, and the CH-53E is approaching 30 years, with the new CH-53K having 3 even more-powerful engines. Now if a helicopter in the EH101's class had 4 engines, that would be unique! And probably overkill, at least for a craft with only one main rotor. Remeber, helicopters are not jet airliners - they have tatally different installation requirements for having 3 engines. - BillCJ 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point; nobody wants it?? Well Britain & Italy wanted it enough to design and build it. Canada, Denmark, Japan (civil & military) and Portugal all want it. And arguably most important of all the US DOD chose a hyrbid European/American version over an all American helicopter for a very high profile mission. Mark83 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The twin-engined NH-90 already has 500 sales! That means nobody wants a 3-engined helicopter which is only slightly bigger. 82.131.210.162 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The US DoD made a typical political decision (thanks EU, for going to Iraq with us) to purchase the US101 for VXX, as the H92 outperformed it in nearly every performance, maintenance, and transportability category. Just look at the CSARX situation and it should be evident that US military contract selection is no real determination of an aircraft's merit. --Cefoskey 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Three engine machines have an old fascinating history in Italy. Savoia-Marchetti S.79 were three engined. EH-101 are almost as fast and even more heavy, and they had torpedoes for ASW: in a certain sense, they are the ultimate three engine torpedo bomber accepted in italian services.--Stefanomencarelli 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced point of view. EH101 is an Anglo-Italian project aimed to satisfy a military requirement regardless of WW2 missing memories.--EH101 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced that EH 101 has torpedoes and is three engined helicopters? Unreferenced that S.79 had three engine and torpedoes?

Three-engine outfit is always for a reason: there is not enough power with only two engines, and a four engine aircraft is too much heavy. For helicopters, four engines are a unpractical solution, and a two engines solution is too weak for a 15 t machine. This explain the 3-engine thing, always, in WWI, WWII and now. As torpedoes, you SHOULD know that their use was abandoned as anti-ship roles, but well survived devoted to ASW tasks. So no strange to explain at all.--Stefanomencarelli 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cormorant troubles

In Aerei magazine N.25 gen-feb 2005, in news section, it is stated that: Cormorant activity was stopped for the third time -except emergency SAR activity.

It is also complained that EH101 should required by contract conditions 7 h work/fly hour. Instead, it showed as requesting well 22 h maintenance for every flight hour. This could affected the sobstitution program for SH-3, in that time S-92 helicopter won the race. So in every case, i said this before post it, but this is a detailed description overall, and so it should be mentioned.--Stefanomencarelli 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior to write in ns0 outdated info from an obscure popular Italian magazine (speaking at a worldwide level) , please give a look to this http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/search_rescue/labrador.html Canadian news site in which EH Industries replies to complains few months later.

If the SH-3 S-92 analysis is from Aerei magazine please clearly quote it. If it is an original research from you please don’t mention it in ns0 as for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For other your original points of view use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. --EH101 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1-This site says EXACTLY all i read in Aerei magazine, both crackings, man service hours and so on.

2-S-92 was choose in the same time, and it was argued to be not exactly not related to EH-101 triple groundings in a single year. Aerei suggested that this was *not* unrelated, facts too.

3-a 2005 magazine is NOT oudated.--Stefanomencarelli 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With all the online resources available over the last 10 years, especially from Canada and the UK, there is no reason to quote a non-English print source tht no one can easily verify. Also, we don't need to cover CH-149-specific material here in depth,as that variant has its own page. That is the reason I removed most of it here, and did so several times before you added it in again. Stefanomencarelli, you would have realized this had you been able to understand English fluently, and had you not seen all my edits of your work as persecution of you. Do you think I moved the CH-149 accident info to the Crmorant page this summer just to cause you problems, when you hadn't even begun editing on en.wiki? Wow, if I had that kind of ablity to know the future, I could make a killing in the stock market! - BillCJ 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of crying with capital letters, why did you forget to mention that the website I quoted has added to your outdated info the answer from EHI ? There is no evidence in your outdated source and in your post, simply because in January 2005 the answer did not exist. This is the reason it is much better to adopt worldwide available sources, so these kind of "omissions" can be easily verified and corrected. Relevant your last crying statement, I have a French January 2005 magazine in which France president is François Mitterrand. I will write this info in relevant wikipedia article saying that new concepts decided here states this info is not outdated (despite there have been two other presidents meanwhile) as “2005 magazine is NOT outdated” with capital letters. As you wrote somewhere else, I am “apalling (sic) incompetent”, please give me more concepts to study like this last.--EH101 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Such 'smart' statements.

1-I have reported the facts i know, with the sources i know. Is it clear this? If there are, and there are, en.sources talking of the same thing, well, good, fair. But this has nothing to do with my statements.

The mere fact that i added this information not means that this is 'superflous'. Many wiki.articles are incomplete and i did not found here this info, at least in the terms i knew. So, what's the problem to recall this?

If the stuff is related with Cormorant page all that fair, good and well. But still where is the problem to report it? If i read something about Lincoln i don't need to read it in english source: perhaps i can do it correctly also in italian.

As pre-viewing the future, i cannot do a 'pre-emptive' internet research just to make happy someone that arguably could be concerned by the lack of english citations.

I don't think that you cannot judice my level of understanding about english and you are not allowed to do, it could be a personal attack.

2-To EH: you have a magazine stating MITTERRAND was the president in 2005? Perhaps someone here made a mistake: what's this: 'quanti animali Mosé portò nell'arca'? Perhaps you wanted to say: Jacques Chirac, but you made a mistake writing it, right? What do you meant? This magazine was wrong or 'outdated'?

'omissions'? I did not said that Cormorant are still grounded. your site is reporting the same facts, and not changed the fact either, that while Cormorant had troubles and groundings S-92 was choose instead to replace SH-3. Cormoran grounded, S.92 choosed instead to Eh101 initial winner. Someone could not see the link, but it's still a matter of fact that this happened.--Stefanomencarelli 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#[edit] Sources in languages other than English]]

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Stefanomencarelli, you are not even ATTEMPTING to follow this official policy'. It's not a guideline or suggestion, or pre-emptive' internet research just to make happy someone that arguably could be concerned by the lack of english citations. It's not optional. - BillCJ 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Go figure. I don't proposed to edit nothing in the main, i don't proposed to replace english sources with italian ones, i don't see any difference between the facts that i know reading magazines and reading web sites. If i know facts because i read them in magazines, so what's the problem? This is as usual, a manner to throw discredit to my self to ran in ARBOCOM and say: 'see, SM not follows our policies'? Unbeliavable, to say the least.--Stefanomencarelli 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way are you following the policy here? Are ENglish language sources available on the topic? Yes. Are you posting the original Italian? No. It has nothing to do with what facts you know, but having verifiable sources. I have to follow those policies, so how is it bad faith to ask you to do the same? - BillCJ 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still denying that your post "EH101 should required by contract conditions 7 h work/fly hour. Instead, it showed as requesting well 22 h maintenance for every flight hour." without accepting to add EHI response reported in the news site I pinpointed here is an omission. You are hiding this fact, you are ignoring policies, you are insulting other users, you put reviewers in ARBCOM and ironically you call us trolls here [2]? What will be your next move? --EH101 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

From your precious site:

But the new Cormorants have had their problems, as well. In October 2004, they were grounded after cracks were found on the tail rotor of one of the helicopters in Newfoundland.

Exactly what i read in Aerei.

The Cormorants were only allowed to fly for essential search-and-rescue missions and for testing. It was the third time in 2004 the Cormorants had to be grounded.

Exactly what i read in Aerei.

The Cormorants have also required more maintenance than their manufacturer initially promised. EH Industries said they would require seven hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. In fact, they require 22 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air.

Exactly what i read in Aerei.

While the Cormorants will be used for search and rescue, the government has decided to use a different helicopter for the military: the Sikorsky S-92. Twenty-eight of them will be purchased to replace the ancient Sea Kings.

Again, that's exactly what i read in Aerei.

EH Industries now says the aircraft initially needs 12 hours for every hour of flight, which will go down to about eight hours as the maintenance crews get more experience.

Claiming by a non-exactly-neutral-source. EH Industries does its work: sell helicopters. The facts reported by this site are yet not matching with EH claimings.

1-The EH claim of seven hours was not respected.

2-The real amount was or is until now, 22 h.

3-EH claims that Cormorant needs 12 hours initial, and then drops to eight. Eight is still 16% greater than what initially promised. 12 is almost the twice, so the maintenance is not the bright side of Cormorant contract. Even EHI (Agusta-Westland) cannot confirm the 7h-claim made years ago, and not matched even today.

4-Finally, crackings were not a part of this already costly /60 millions-4-helicopter) contract.

5-This site, differently to EHI claims, is not reporting that the low-maintenance efficiency is actually due to ground crews, as obviously EHI-AW suggest (the guilth is always of the others, i wonder that AW not claims that also cracking are 'due to low training').

So EH Industries can says what they wants, this can be reported as well, but advertising is one thing, facts another. Facts displayed by YOUR site shows datas matching with mines, but not show how EH claimings are matched in real world.

Until you provide a site that claims that the original EHI claimings were respected, this is just advertising activity. When and if real world, facts, users, will match with EHI claims, then it will something. But still, the Cormorant troubles and crackings are true, regardless if and when they are or will be solved.

PS: i wouldn't to think that you are not exactly 'neutral' as well, it could be possible that you have a direct interest in this stuff, seen how you react every time someone dares to post criticizes to 'italian' products. Spamming activity? In nomen, omen.--Stefanomencarelli 11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

So, let me try to summarize your point:EHI is advertising and none of their official statements can be considered reliable nor wikipedia usable. Italian, Danish, British, Portuguese, Japanese governments are cheating and fooling their taxpayers. On the contrary, Canadian complainers are right for sure and they have the only fair world government with the best worldwide maintenance experts (this specific issue is called "fact"). English sources are useless with respect to popular Italian magazines, these last are the truth itself and if they do not show evidence of a status change relevant to their 2005 news, we must consider it as frozen for ever. Other users are trolls. I am a lobbyist and an "apalling(sic) incompetent". Anything more?

By the way, did you ever have found on Aerei what a maintainability test, according to MIL standards is ? Do you have knowledge that for any military contract a seven vs one hour like maintainability demo has to be performed for each and every helicopter during acceptance tests? Do you ever read on Aerei how an helicopter acceptance is done? If maintainability tests do not pass, the impacted acceptance processes are halted. Obviously these factory acceptance tests (FAT) allows EHI maintenance teams to perform the work with their obvious higher skill and expensive tooling sets as they have to demonstrate technical feasibility and not correct logistic sizing. The point is not what EHI “claims” as you accuse, but what the Canadians without proper training, tools and spares are able to do on field. Unfortunately, as I am incompetent and with a “direct interest” as you insinuate, all these facts are not acceptable, wrong and biased according to your opinion. Have fun with wikipedia. --EH101 21:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh-oh_'I romani, i romani-che-bello-che bello'.

EHI is advertising and none of their official statements can be considered reliable nor wikipedia usable

No, they make their job, Wikipedians another. We are not advertising service.

Italian, Danish, British, Portuguese, Japanese governments are cheating and fooling their taxpayers

Forget the 7 billions dollars for 23 Kesterls.

But let's get a look about EH-101 costs for MM:

Until 1991: 652 mld lires. 1992-93:?, 1994: 88, 1995:120, 1996: 255, 1997: 270, 1998: 238, 1999:274, 2000: 202, 2001:?, 2002-2006: around 385 mld in Euro.

2,500,000,000,000++ lires for 16 helicopters for MMI (=150++ billions each) is something that should have worried a bit italian taxpayers. Just 42,000+ lires pro capite. EH.101s costed more than all the AMX program for 136 attack fighters and almost 2 times than AV-8B Plus. Simply umbelievable.

Canadian complainers are right for sure and they have the only fair world government with the best worldwide maintenance experts (this specific issue is called "fact").

Oh, obviusly also crackings in tail were their fault: they dared to start the engines, after all.

English sources are useless with respect to popular Italian magazines, these last are the truth itself and if they do not show evidence of a status change relevant to their 2005 news, we must consider it as frozen for ever

Past is frozen forever. Future is not. Groundings in 2004 happened. Crackings happened. Canadian shift to S-92 happened.

I am a lobbyist and an "apalling(sic) incompetent". Anything more?

Nothing that here could be said.

By the way, did you ever have found on Aerei what a maintainability test, according to MIL standards is ?

What matters actually is what canadians found, not me.

Do you have knowledge that for any military contract a seven vs one hour like maintainability demo has to be performed for each and every helicopter during acceptance tests? Do you ever read on Aerei how an helicopter acceptance is done?

Nope, Canadian either.

The point is not what EHI “claims” as you accuse, but what the Canadians without proper training, tools and spares are able to do on field

hmm...you talk like a used-car seller

Unfortunately, as I am incompetent and with a “direct interest” as you insinuate, all these facts are not acceptable, wrong and biased according to your opinion. Have fun with wikipedia.

The fact is that Cormorant, your 'relatives', are grounded and criticized. I am not a tribunal, but if A sells a xxxxxxxxxxxx $ stuff to B, then at least this should be realiable enough to not crying for money spent. This was not happened in Canada service, sorry, it's not me but direct users and sources that states this.

I am pretty curious to see what you'll invent in Evidence whining page. I yet to see the best.--Stefanomencarelli 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delivery Dates

I'm confused about the delivery dates of the A/C. The current page says the 17th May 1997, Aeroflight says 27th may 1997, navy-mod says 1998.
What's the real story here? Wolfsbane2k 09:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin in Infobox

There are no guidlelines restricting the title filed only to the general names/designations. I placed "Merlin" in the title field of the infobox as it is not just the name but the designation used in the British armed forces. I also placed in on the second line to indicte that it is not the primary name for all users. Given that the British are the largest users of the type to this point, the name is bound to be commonplace in the English-speaking world, and I therefore don't see a problem including it here. While we don't need to indicate every name or designation used for aircraft in the title field, we should include the major ones, especially as the aritcle's title is generally limited to just one designation or name. I have been including the major ones in a broad range of aircraft articles, and to now ther have been no objections. The US and Canadian versions are covered in separate articles, or I would probably have included the designations here also. At this point, the UK and Italian versions overlap to a fair degree, as do the remaining users. If the info on the British variants continues to grow apart from the rest of the article, I would recommend spliting them off to AgustaWestland Merlin at some point, and then remove the "Merlin" name from the title field here. Right now, I think it best to leave the article as it is, and the name too. - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that ‘Merlin’ applies only to RN/RAF EH101s. To apply it to a commercial helicopter, or to a Canadian/Italian/Danish one, is as incorrect as calling a British one ‘Cormorant’ — and I don’t see what the number in service with each force has to do with it. David Arthur (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i have to agree with BillCJ, I cant see any reason why the Merlin name can not be in the infobox as the name used by the largest user. We do the same for all United States military aircraft where nearly all of them use the US Mililtary designation (of the majority user) but not all customers/users use the same designation or name. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Italian Navy did a quite unknown contest for naming its variant (which has different engines, avionics, fuel tanks, performance, role and obviously cost) and the winning name was "tritone" (italian for triton) totally ignored both by military users and common people. In my (and possibly several others) opinion, Merlin, Tritone and Heliliner (civil variant official name) are very different among them and if there are no dedicated articles like it is now, a blank generic EH101 familiy name should be the best article choice. --EH101 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EH101. As quoted by BillCJ, Merlin might be "commonplace in the English-speaking world", but only in the United Kingdom. The USA calls it the Kestrel, and Canada calls it the Cormorant. Also nowhere on the official AgustaWestland page is the name Merlin used. 87.113.25.103 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Merlin" name is not specific to the UK - please note carefull the name that the Portuguese Air Force uses on both its Portugese- and English- language websites.) The Cormorant and Kestrel both have there own articles, so there is no need to list them in the infobox here. In addition, many articles have variant names in the infobox. We can't have every optional title in the article name, so the infobox gives us a place to put "major" variant names. This has been done in a number other articles, such as the UH-1N Twin Huey with the "CH-135" - I guess that will have to be removed now too! - BillCJ (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - Nowhere on the official AW101 page is the designation "EH101" used, so by your own standard we should now move the article to AgustaWestland AW101! (I'm actually for doing that eventually, but don't see the need for it now.) - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just have to be careful of the creeping name or British Aerospace Spitfire or Boeing DC-3 approach and stick with the common name. No problem with being prepared though but I would suggest leaving alone until it is widely known as the AW101. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danish EH101's Grounded Because of broken engine axle that caused an emergency landing

http://politiken.dk/indland/article465894.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.33.132 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what it says as it is not in English but grounding aircraft after an accident is not an uncommon activity for the best safety reasons. Would not have thought it worth a mention unless an inquiry shows some long term or fleet wide problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

More from the same paper Confidential report slams new helicopters. Here's the gist:

The Danish military finds that its helicopters were air-ready only 30 percent of the time, compared to the planned 80 percent. The fleet cost about 3,000,000,000 Danish kroner (more than a half billion US dollars). The report concludes that it will probably be necessary either to replace the helicopters or to reduce their range of assignments.

Don't quite see where to fit something like this in the article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably under the RDAF heading. We really do need to find an English-language source or official translation, but if Danish is all that is available, the Danish source can (and should) be used. If this does lead to the helicopters being replaced, it will probably affect the deal in which the UK is buying more EH101s for the RDAF, and perhps the UK would buy these EH101s too. If something like that is speculated, then the UK press will cover it (in English). - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian E101/Cormorant has lacked spare parts since 2004 and has many quality problems

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8d8b4f4a-40e1-4eb8-a198-76eca30185bc&p=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.15.240 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian aircraft are described in this artice - CH-149 Cormorant please address any comments in the related talk page. Not that their was any comment! MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)