Talk:Sikorsky R-4

Controversy

Piotr, there is no controversy. The R-4 is the first mass produced helicopter, reaching over 400 copies. Neither the Fl 282 or the Fa 223 can match that claim. --Born2flie 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversy. Being the first relates to the date when something is initiated and its first appearance. The first helicopter which had jigs and factory equipment set up specifically to allow mass production was the Fl 282 and not the R4. The Fl 282 began mass production first. The earlier fl 265 was found to be more difficult to mass produce due to it's complicated airframe. The fl 265 was given a substantial production order but flettner set up his factories to focus on the 282 and the 282 began mass production before any other helicopter. It received larger official production orders than any other ww2 helicopter (over a thousand units) but only bombing of factories prevented this being achieved.

The designation of production number required to qualify as "mass produced" is completely arbitrary. If the statement is made that the R4 was made in larger numbers than other helicopters of the period then that is acceptable but to claim priority is absurd. An analogy would be to claim that the Volkswagon Beetle was the worlds first mass produced car because it was made in far larger numbers that the Model T ford.GregOrca (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an online agenda regarding replacing Sikorsky's place in history with Flettner. The truth is that Sikorsky's R-4 was the first mass produced helicopter, as in produced in large numbers, which is the accepted definition on dictionary.com[1] as well as merriam-webster.com[2]. The problem seems to be exacerbated by confusion of the term mass production[3] with the term mass produced. While they are related phrases, mass produced deals specifically with a qualitative quantity while mass production describes an industrial method of production. You seem to want to argue how when the issue is how many.

Let's look at the arguments.

Mass produced

24 of Flettner's Fl 282 versus 131 of Sikorsky's R-4 isn't really the same as 15 million Ford Model Ts versus 21 million VW Beetles. The vehicle numbers are far more comparable and include variants which would bump Sikorsky's numbers even higher making a far more dramatic argument. Flettner's numbers would apparently have to include prototypes and variants to be as high as 24, or 35, depending on the source for the numbers.

Mass production

The production order for the 1,000 units of Flettner's helicopter wasn't submitted to BMW until 1944. Prior to that, there were 20-some aircraft recorded as having been built by Flettner's company and serving with the Kriegsmarine. Another source lists 32 preproduction machines as having been built prior to the bombing of the Flettner and BMW factories. And yet another source[4] claims that there were 30 prototypes (including the 20 previously noted as serving with the Kriegsmarine), that 15 others were preproduction, and that the aircraft never made it to any real production at all.

Yes, it is a shame that the war prevented helicopter pioneers, such as Louis Breguet and Anton Flettner, from achieving greater prominence in aviation history. It is also a shame that only one person goes down in history as winning a race during the Olympic games, no matter how deserving other competitors are and no matter what they've accomplished prior to the Olympics. --Born2flie (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice Photo

If anyone is interested there is a nice photo featuring a Sikorsky R-4 titled "US Navy Antarctic Expedition helicopter returns from survey of South Pole waters. The Coast Guard helicopter is shown landing on the icebreaker Northwind. In the distance are other ships of Task Force 68" on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum web-site, it is dated 1940. Wikipedia:Public domain image resources list this site as public domain. The image can be found at http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/images/photodb/23-0329a.gif. --Thefrood 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--Thefrood 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good picture. Interestingly enough, the attitude of the aircraft implies taking off rather than returning. --Born2flie (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro appears to tell you more about the Fl-282 then the R-4 suggest that most of it can be deleted as not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair It is regularly claimed that Sikorsky's helicopter was the first to enter series production and reference to the prior use of flettner craft is commonly rejected . I would like to suggest that It is highly relevant that the real helicopter that first went into series production(Fl 282) is mentioned with supporting detail in an entry about a helicopter (the R4) that is quite erroneously claimed to be the worlds first production helicopter.

An introduction without establishing the R4's sequence in history in relation to the actual first production helicopters made in Germany serves to consolidate the Myth that the R4 was the first. This is simply not the case. It is also commonly stated that the R4 was the first helicopter to take off and land from a ship. The introduction places that misinformation in perspective by informing that Shipboard helicopters (Fl 265) retired from service with the Navy before any sikorsky helicopters had flown untethered. GregOrca (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Fl 282 being mentioned in the article it just need to be balanced and there is not a need for a full history of the 282 in this page particularly in the introduction. I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

: Well perhaps because these issues regularly arise with this craft it should be directly addressed and it could be stated in the introduction along the lines that "the R4 is commonly claimed to have achieved a number of helicopter firsts. However most of these common claims are myths and are more accurately attributed to entirely different helicopters manufactured by other nations. The Four most common erroneous claims are: 1. that the R4 was the first helicopter to enter series production. (reality Fl-282) 2. First Helicopter to take off and land from a ship (reality Fl-265) 3. First helicopter used operationally in combat (reality Fl-265) 4. First Helicopter to be tested for rescue operations (reality Fl-265 and Fa 223) The R4 received smaller mass production orders than its German rivals yet because its factories were immune from bombing in America, and the German helicopter factories were targeted and severely damaged, the R4 was able to be produced in larger numbers than the German production helicopters. GregOrca (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The intro is not the place for an extended discussion of another helicopter. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the entire "Contrary to popular belief" statement as OR. Unless you can find a reliable source the proves such claims have been made, please leave this out. Also, Aviastar is NOT acceptable as a reliable source itself, as it contains copyvios of copyrighted text. You'll need to cite the source directly. Finally, the essay above on mass production is pure origial research. If you want to claim the Fl 282 is the first mass-produced helicopter, find a source that says it. If someone submits a source that claims the R-4 is the first mass-produced helicopter, you'll have to cite a better source that explains why it's not true. - BillCJ (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

R-6

More information on the R-6 would be helpful. There appear to have been significant structural differences between that model and the R-4. Drutt (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking on and off for reliable sources about R-6 development; the why and how it came about being. I'll keep looking. --Born2flie (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoverfly 1 or Hoverfly I

Hmmm - I came to this as I took 'Is' to be a typo or redundant fragment. But I see the HMS1 often referred to as the 'I' in the refs. That said, I take it to be Roman numeral 'one'. Be that as it may, I have reverted the edits but then reworded to make it read more easily. Springnuts (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hoverfly I as in roman numeral is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All British designations used Roman numerals until around 1946, after-which they were replaced by Arabic numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.184 (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

convoy use?

According to Flight in 1946 Wing Commander Brie and Squadron Leader Cable flew the R-4 for the first time as an anti-submarine aircraft on a convoy during the war. Is there anything more known about this? eg where they taking advantage of an R-4 being shipped to the UK for British use? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite the article the Royal Navy obtained a number of Hoverfly Is on Lend-lease in late 1943, Fleet Air Arm Helicopters since 1943 details the seven loaned YR-4Bs and gives further details. The idea was to embark two YR-4s and leave with a sea convoy for the U.K These two aircraft will be flown on and used for flight trials during voyage. The two Hoverfly Is FT834 and FT835 were transported by the MV Daghestan from New York in January 1944 as part of convoy HX 274, fitted with floats they were used for convoy protection trials during the voyage. When I get time I will add something to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sikorsky R-4/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Born2flie: I know there's more out there than just what is included in this article. --04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sikorsky R-4. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206063553/http://armyavnmuseum.org/museum/collection/rw3.html to http://www.armyavnmuseum.org/museum/collection/rw3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908174433/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/sikorsky-r-4b-hoverfly-1.htm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/sikorsky-r-4b-hoverfly-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202060801/http://www.plastikowe.pl/galerie/lotnictwo/sikorsky-r-4b-hoverfly-i to http://www.plastikowe.pl/galerie/lotnictwo/sikorsky-r-4b-hoverfly-i

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) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)