Talk:AgustaWestland AW109

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft / Rotorcraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

A119

I have recently added some information on the AgustaWestland A119 Koala to this page, as it is a derivitive of the A109. Once more information is gathered, epecially a pic or 2, I do have a source with some information on the A119, including specs. At that point I'll be glad to assist with creating a new page for it. - BillCJ 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the new page has been created! - BillCJ 01:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specs changes

I assume the recent changes to the ranges in the specs are TO the ones that are in the sources provided? The AgustaWestland site has been down for an hour as I write this, so I can't double-check the source. But when it does come back up, I expect the specs here to match those there. I do admit sometimes the wording is open to interpretation, and that =this may be one of those cases. But until the site is back up, I can't tell. - BillCJ 01:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New photo

I've just uploaded Image:723squadron Augusta recovery.jpg which is of an Augusta A109 (I don't know the specific variant) assigned to 723 Squadron RAN of the Royal Australian Navy, performing a rescue demonstration at the recent Navy Open Day in Sydney. I thought I would bring it to the attention of this article's editors, as you may be able to use it here or elsewhere. -- saberwyn 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Missing” Specification

This aircraft article is missing some (or all) of its specifications. If you have a source, you can help Wikipedia by adding them.

It seems everything is there. ¿What is missing? (If I knew what was missing/wanted, I might be able to track down an answer.) Contributions/152.121.19.11 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

Not really defined anywhere but the last it was discussed it was suggested that for powered, heavier-than-air aircraft than the following is required span, length, wing/rotor area, at least one weight, engine type and power/thrust, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling. If your happy all of them are present then the tag can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USCG use

The article mentions that the US Coast Guard is no longer using the aircraft. This phase out is not referenced and no mention is made of why and what replaced it in its role. --rogerd (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference on the way. The MH-65C replaced the MH-68. - The Bushranger (talk)

Merger proposal

Just another variant, no need for another article--Petebutt (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason I created a separate article for AW109S is that it is build and marketed as a different variant although it has been developed from A109. It is longer, wider, heavier, bears different engines and avionics. New page also helps a reader to see the specifications of AW109S which are different from A109. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the articles should probably be merged back together. There isn't really enough material to justify a split - if substantially more was developed, I'd happily reconsider this position Kyteto (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, for now at least. The AW109 article is fairly large, and the Grand's specs are different enough to warrant a separate specs section at least. The prose definitely needs expansion, but if that can't be done in the next few months, then I would support a merge at that point. Note to AKS: It's usually better to propose a variant article split on the talk page first, and get input/opinions from other editors on whether or not a split should be performed. That can save you a lot of work. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Given that the suggested expansion hasn't taken place in almost 11 months, it's probably best to merge this back in. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]