Talk:Bell 47J Ranger

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

Smithsonian Institution Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

JC Helicopter Company

No sources are given for the section about the JC Helicopter Company in "Operational History". (The section is also sloppily written, but I digress.) Surely a story this juicy has been published by a reputable source. If not, it needs to be removed, and I intend to do so if the writer does not cite sources. Carguychris (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the story notable? Even if it is, it seems WP:UNDUE to discuss it in such length.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question. The section goes into far too much trivial detail. However, I figured I would start with verifiability first, and if any of it is verifiable, the notable bits can be compressed into 2-3 sentences. Carguychris (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont see it being really notable so I have pruned it down to one sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, that works! Carguychris (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Executive"?

Is this an "executive" version? What is that even? It was primarily designed for transporting company executives around in luxury? I think it's just a somewhat more finished utility helicopter. That's like calling a Cessna 320 an "executive aircraft" because it's a bit more fancy than a 172. Although really it's closer to calling the 172 an "executive aircraft" because it has an enclosed cockpit instead of open cockpits and fabric fuselage. Idumea47b (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)