Talk:Mil V-12

Innovative?

"notably the side-by-side rotor scheme"

I should say this wasnt "innovative", but rather direct rip off from German Focke-Achgelis Fa 223. And one could actually claim the whole aparatus was such.

http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://www.luftarchiv.de/hubschrauber/fa223.htm http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fa223.html http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Fa_223/DI52.htm http://www.vrtulnik.cz/fa-223popis.htm

ohh.. Yet another "soviet copy of western copy of german device" flame... Ja, naturlich! 105 tons vs 3 tons doesnt matter. Carring wing vs simple girder is no differ. Yes, it was not the first helo of such a scheme. I don't like words as "innovative" - they produce flame, but my level of english is "1". PLZ, edit the article. --jno 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

this discussion is displaced.

The V-12 was a true inovation in aviation. The won prizes and patents are clear proof for this. The inovation was not based in the rotor arangement. Many other helicopter had used it before both in Germany and Russia. The true inovation was how the problems related in controlling such a giant were solved. In the end it was an ingenious piece of engineering, but there was simply no use for it when it came out. It is the same faith which happened to so many other great aircraft. BAC-TSR, Avro Arrow, Dornier Do 31 and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olilux2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

hotelicopter

I think that the first prototype of the helicopter's been turned into a flying hotel or something. See http://hotelicopter.com/ 75.61.108.90 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest even to remove reference to this from the current article: the images of the hotelicopter's suites are equal (not just similar) to the one of YOTEL (http://www.yotel.com/). Hoax, marketing or fraud? 145.97.221.41 (talk)

It´s also obvious that the "first flight" pictures are computer-generated and only the background is real. --Lennier1 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a hoax... The specs listed on the site are completely impossible. If they were actually accurate the "hotelicopter" wouldn't be able to fly as they have added 20 feet to the rear end of it and more than doubled its height. Plus if they really had streamlined it and added four turbofans the top speed would likely be faster than the original's not slower. 64.180.20.17 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The web page address for the "Hotelicopter" has been changed to (http://aprilfools.hotelicopter.com/) So I am certain it is a hoax. A very slick hoax. It's nice to imagine what the Mil Mi-12 would look like if it were designed today - envisioned as a flying hotel. Personally - I don't like it. I would rather fly aboard the "Spruce Goose". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash591 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the 'hotelicopter' from the article - again, as it never actually existed. Centrepull (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Hotelicopter" has its own article at Hotelicopter, FWIW. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this warrant a small link in the "see also" section (with a small "(2009 April Fools' hoax)" comment attached)? After all, it gained some notable popularity with over a million page views. --MikeZ (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Image does not show scale

It's a major fault that the main image in the article doesn't show the scale of the aircraft (i.e. there is nothing to clearly compare its size to in the picture). Either the picture should be changed for one that does (e.g for this photo from the same series, the best I could find in Commons), or this photo or a similar one should be used later in the article to illustrate the scale, which is one of the main notable features of this helicopter. Opinions? Centrepull (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a poor image to use, whatever your purpose. The Mi-12 just looks like a toy beside a big round something - if one doesn't know what the something is (which is not explained), it's quite useless for showing how "big" the Mi-12 is - it does just the opposite. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same image? I linked to File:Mil_Mi-12_aug_2008_2.jpg, an image of the Mi-12 with a MiG under its wing, clearly showing scale. Where's the 'big round something' you mentioned? Centrepull (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, we weren't looking at the same pic. My sincere apologies! I got confused somewhere along the line, obviously! I've added your photo to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky Prize

I removed the claims that the V-12 designers won the Sikorsky Prize, as the Sikorsky Prize was not created until 1980 and as of 2011 has never been awarded (The prize is offered to anyone who creates the first human powered helicopter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been corrected. I neglected to consider the possibility of a human powered V-12 prototype capable of time travel. Please excuse my ignorance. 66.108.243.166 (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Moi

Speaking of time travel, you posted your explanation 3 minutes after I revertd your unexplained deletion. Please fill in the edit summaries next time, so other editors will know why you make your edits. Anyway, I've a mention of the "Igor I. Sikorsky International Trophy" on the AHS site, and this appears to be the "prize" mentioned in the text. Mil won the trophy in 1960 and 1970, the latter date probably being fo rthe Mi-12. If' you'll stop adding the ludicrous human-flight claim to the article, I'll try to track down a more specific source later today. - BilCat (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claims? That link you gave 6 years ago is dead. I am, giving you the benefit of the doubt ("assume good faith"), believing you that it was a live link back in 2011. But now, in 2017, this Sikorsky claim is, well, unsourced (the intra-WP link goes to the prize that was created in 1980, as the OC said). --jae (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ground effect

I'm not all that clear on it, but aren't the specification lines: "Hovering ceiling in ground effect: 600 m (2,000 ft) Hovering ceiling out of ground effect: 10 m (33 ft)" printed backwards? Ground effect (aerodynamics) seems to refer to an effect that increases lift on an aircraft flying within its own wingspan or rotorspan of the ground. I can see how having added lift would give you an increased hover ability, but 2,000ft is well over the rotorspan of this craft, so I don't see how that can be "in ground effect". It would seem more logical if the numbers were reversed..45Colt 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Probable wrong designation

Not sure how to handle this but im a aviation historian and I'm pretty sure the built aircraft was referred to as the Mi-12. I have several Aeroflot pins and they clearly refer to the helicopter as the MI-12 not V-12. Furthermore soviet usage of internal company designations (ie v-12)is somewhat inconsistent. It should be noted that the source Gordon isn't the most reliable aviation authors. So not sure how to handle this. Lucinator (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)