Talk:Bell 206

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: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.
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

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.
	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

Replacing LongRanger specs with JetRanger specs

There was a three-view of the JetRanger, but specs of the LongRanger. The LongRanger is really a specific off-shoot of the 206, while the JetRanger is the 206 itself. Additionally, the LongRanger specs were factually incorrect and seemed to be a mix of both versions (for instance, it gave the seat count and fuselage length of the JetRanger) so I replaced it with the accurate specs of the 206A JetRanger. I CTRL C+V'd the source of the LongRanger's specs below in case anyone thinks both should be present or something like that, but in that case, someone should go in and correct/verify all of the facts because at least two are wrong: WaltSevenThree (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the source text for the specs template as it only clutters the discussion. The old template content can still be found in the page history. I agree that the 206L-4 is not the best variant to represent the type. However, searching for the Bell 206 on the FAA make/model search engine shows that the 206B is far more common than the 206A, and therefore is probably the best variant to cover in the specifications section. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)