Talk:Fenestron

¿Alleged Fenestron Stall Phenomenon?

¿What is that? It would be helpful to say something (at very least). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just a myth. Nobody removes it because people babysit their articles on wikipedia.5.10.49.8 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The following was removed - it was merely a minor temporary drawback during design, which did not find it's way into production aircraft

• Alleged Fenestron stall phenomenon

120.151.160.158 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Fantail

I wanted to move this page to fantail because Fenestron is a registered trademark, but I don't know if fantail is also a registered trademark. --Gbleem 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is listed as a trademark for tail rotors abandoned in 1995 but it is not clear if it referred to this kind of tail rotor. Serial number 74164175 --Gbleem 05:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Higher power requirement for a given thrust ?

The alleged and unsubstantiated disadvantage "Higher power requirement for a given thrust" directly contradicts the ducted fan article, which states (with reference) the opposite: "In some cases, a shrouded rotor can be 94% more efficient than an open rotor". 120.151.160.158 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Heavy-handed negative bias?

The "Disadvantages" section still contains some broad sweeping claims that are not fully accurate, and a number of dubious and un-referenced statements that are almost certainly not accurate.

eg:-

• The Fenestron's disadvantages are those common to all ducted fans when compared to propellers.

Not strictly true, and especially not so when considering the main rotor

• Higher weight and air resistance of the enclosure

Weight: OK, but "air-resistance" - this is almost certainly not true, considering the Fenestron "travels sideways" in relation to an "normal" duct (it's the tail rotor, not a forward-drive unit).

• Higher construction and purchasing cost

Doubtful, but even if true, any cost difference is likely to be insignificant

• Less tail rotor authority in crosswind situations

There's no such thing as "crosswind" when you're in the air - crosswind is relative only to the ground. Even so, the Fenestron uses less power, and makes more thrust, so this claim simply makes no sense.

• Limits on aircraft size [7]

References an article about noisy helecopters, despite the fact that Fenestrons actually reduce noise - and given the fact these offer twice as much effective thrust, that statement sounds the opposite of correct.

Does make me wonder who wrote all that, and what they were up to. Is there something commerical that competes in the market against Fenestron?

120.151.160.158 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, just had a look around for compariable airfraimes, the EC130 and the AS350 where the closes i could find and the EC130 is actually cheaper to buy OTS compared to the latest AS350 58.174.241.157 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fenestron/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: Seems a little short considering that there is an increasing number of aircraft with Fenestron™. --21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fenestron. 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/20110507112227/http://www.eurocopter.com/w1/jrotor/72/story57.html to http://www.eurocopter.com/w1/jrotor/72/story57.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fenestron.com/site/docs_wsw/RUB_10101/pa-spe2006-02-01.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions in "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections

In the "Advantages" section, it says "decrease in power requirements", but in the "Disadvantages" section, it says "greater ... power requirement" !

Please would someone knowledgable sort out this contradiction ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. In "Advantages" section, it says "A decrease in power requirements during the cruise phase of flight.", while in the "Disadvantages" section, it says "Increase in power required during the hover phase of flight." (Emphases added.) Those bolded phrases which you left out are the key to the apparent contradictions. The Fenestron requires more power in hover than a helicopter with a conventional tail rotor, while it requires less power while in cruise flight. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)