Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:45, 7 July 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the rotorcraft project. Military history: Aviation / Asian / Chinese 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somebody who reads Chinese is invited to correct this article

Somebody who reads Chinese is invited to correct this article, 'cause there are too many conjectures in it. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Even we Chinese know little about this project. It's top secret. However, recently some pictures of the WZ-10 and its engine appeared on the internet. It is in size of tiger. Sinolonghai 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Romania never had Mi-24. The article is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.116.124 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent copying of features from other designs

It looks like a "blend" of Rooivalk and Tiger features. Makes one wonder about industrial espionage or was there co-operation between CAIC and Denel and/or Eurocopter with this design? Roger (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Drawing are misleading, the WZ10 doesnt look like the eurocopter Tiger at all, there is no connection between Tiger and WZ10, while there are some very limited cooperation between the Caic and Denzel on early stage of the project which was ended dur to Denzels fear of competition in african market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.133.150 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks more to me like a blend of the A129 and Commanche. The cab certainly has a feel of the Mangusta yet the blended fusalage/empenage with its extended 'crease' must be an attempt at stealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WZ9 is designed by 608th institute, not 602th institute.

since the 608th institute specialize in the turboshaft engine design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.205.190.155 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Name?

For all other Chinese aircraft the manufacturer's name is written a such Chengdu J-10, Nanchang CJ-6, Harbin Z-9 etc. this article should be moved to Changhe WZ-10. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Designed by Kamov

It was revealed today that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov, and not by CAIC, Wu Ximing, the 608th Institute, or any other Chinese entity. Based upon this news, the article is in need of a revamp. 99.164.12.23 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It was revealed today that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov, and not by CAIC, Wu Ximing, the 608th Institute, or any other Chinese entity. Based upon this news, the article is in need of a revamp. 99.164.12.23 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

i have revamped this article with the information. however a sockpuppet (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang)is going around removing my sourced content without valid explanation in order to add his own propaganda. the chief designer of kamov has not recanted anything. the article clearly continues to make a distinction between designed by and developed by as reported by flightglobal and others. to quote the chief designer of kamov ( "Thereafter, to the country's credit, Mikheev says, the Chinese handled the rest of the developmental work. That includes the developmental prototypes and the operational aircraft that is currently in production for the Chinese military. "So I wish success to the helicopter," Mikheev says. Mikheev would not comment on the WZ-10's performance. "That is a question for the Chinese," he says. "I know what I have done." )

if there is a dispute with regards to designer, please provide sources that confirm or deny kamov's involvement here before making any changes to the article itself. please try to achieve consensus before engaging in disruptive behavior. please do not continue to vandalize this article for propaganda purposes and stop making ad hominem attacks against other editors. Pvpoodle (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

the editor conducting disruptive edits on this and other articles keeps posting several links that he claims "debunk" my links. here is the google translation of the latest link he has posted translated link original , the article clearly mentions that kamov is the original designer while china has been responsible for further development. this is the view presented in both the flightglobal and other links i have added and the stand of the article itself. i do not understand why the editor is continuing to make these disruptive edits? does he think that by providing a link in chinese that we will accept his changes without verifying with google translate or other tools first? Pvpoodle (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick google on this issue shows that Kamov designed the chopper, removing this info is disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Accident

The referenced crash resulted in the fuselage remaining intact, apparently. That doesn't mean that "the problem is speculated to have been caused by the tail". The cause of the crash, and the damage resulting, are entire unconnected.101.98.175.68 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class rotorcraft articles
• Rotorcraft task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles