Talk:Bell 206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] 206C JetRanger III?

The most up-to-date aircraft version from Bell that I can find is called the Bell 206B-3, also referred to as the "JetRanger III". In 1977, when Bell developed the JetRanger III, the Army also updated its OH-58A to the OH-58C. All the references I seem to find are in relation to Italian made JetRangers ("AB-206C-1 JetRanger" as seen on airliners.net), and none of them are referred to as JetRanger IIIs. I'm wondering if this isn't a discrepancy that needs a little bit more research. (Born2flie 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Review of the NTSB and FAA databases reveals no 206C models. (Born2flie 00:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Stolen "Variant"

I had added "unlicensed" to that listing on the "stolen" design, but it didn't look right, so I removed it. I agree it doesn't belong, but didn't want to enforce my view alone. Thanks. --BillCJ 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Current litigation. [1][2]

[edit] Bell 407 variants vs. 206 variants

When do we stop treating the children of the 206 as if they belong in an article that discusses the 206? I thought that was the purpose of the See Also section (Related Content as per WP:Air) in the MoS. According to the company, these are different models that should be treated differently. To me, it doesn't matter that the 407 is on the 206 type certificate with the FAA, the company calls it a different model. It even has such significant differences that it has its own article on the Wiki. My opinion/recommendation is to keep the 407 and 417 stuff on the 407 and 417 articles.(Born2flie 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

I disagree. The purpose of the variants list, among other things, is to show a design lineage. See the variants list on the UH-1 article, for instance. Just because there's three generations between you and your great-grandma doesn't mean you cut her out of the family tree! By keeping the full lineage in the article, we show our readers the far-reaching design influence that the 206 had, in once concise list. Akradecki 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Are we discussing the Variants list, or the text itself? I agree with keeping the text references to the other variants to as few as possible (even none, though some refence may be necessary in context). I aggree that the Variants and Related content lists exist to show the lineage, thus making it unnecessary for the most part to have them in the text. --BillCJ 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I should have clarified better in my comment above: I don't see any need for text on the variants, but definitely in the list. Akradecki 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought my reference to the "Related Content" portion as being appropriate for that would separate my discussion of the article "text" itself. Sorry for the confusion. Also, my point is that a variant is basically the same aircraft with minor modifications. The 407 and 417 are significantly different than just an engine change or longer rotor blades, or even just a beefed up tail rotor system. The 407 has an entirely different powertrain (engine, transmission, hub, rotorblades, driveshafts). (Born2flie 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

The Bell 417 is not a child of the 206, but a grandchild, as it is developed from the 407. Why does is need to be listed in the text under civilian variants? (Serious question.) I thought we were agreeing that it didn't belong here, which was why I deleted it. However, it definitely belongs in the 407 page's list.
--BillCJ 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason that the 412 is a derivative of the UH-1/204. It's a grandchild, but still is part of the lineage. I put it back in the list, not in the text. The point is to show how far reaching the lineage is. Yes, the drive train is different, but the airframe is not. Akradecki 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I got you.. Sorry. --BillCJ 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Powertrain, not drivetrain. All the way from tail rotor to tip of the rotor blade is different. Different forces also means that different bellcranks and pushtubes are used. The 407 airframe is some 8 inches or more wider than the 206 and the 206L, so the airframe is different, even if it appears to be "the same". I guarantee they are not having this issue discussing 737s versus 767s. Why? Because when the company designates a different model number, and designs a similar looking aircraft with different sizes, systems and performance characteristics, people understand that although the company may have built on what they had before, the new model is different.

The original model 209 shared all the dynamic components with the model 204 (UH-1C), including the complete tailboom assembly, but Bell still designates them as two separate models. Today, we treat the AH-1 and the UH-1 as separate aircraft, because the obvious airframe and performance differences demanded it. Here, we have the same company treating two different models separately, again. The 407 is sufficiently different from the 206 that they didn't call it the 206LW or 206L-5, the called it the 407 and customers understood that this was a different product, although comfortably familiar in appearance.

Only on wikipedia can we be collectively obtuse enough to ignore what realities exist in the real world to draw imaginary lines between articles and facts as if the facts were important enough to be included on every article to which that fact could possibly be construed to be applicable. (Born2flie 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

If you want to use the Boeing analogy, there's a lot of differences between a 731 and a 739, but they are still of the same lineage. The key is the source of the model from a design point of view: when the 407 was developed, it was not a fresh piece of paper. From an economic point of view, it doesn't always make sense to do so. To save costs, one design is used as a starting point for the next (heck, Bell is famous for incorporating the old into the new...its fun to look through the IPB and see where the different systems come from, which is possible because Bell incorporates the original model number it was used on into a part's part number). So, the 206L was the starting point for the 407, and technologies matured, and it was time to modify if further to keep up with market pressures, and lo, we get the 417. Just like the 205 became the 212 which became the 412, just like the 427 led to the 429 and just like the 222 became the 230 which became the 430. That's what lineage is all about. The whole point of including the grandchildren in the lineage is to show that they weren't fresh-sheet-of-paper designs, they grew from earlier designs. (And, for what it's worth, "drive train" is used just as much in the industry as "power train"...I don't balance the "power shafts' on my 222U or 412, but I do balance the "drive shafts", and trannies are trannies; sorry if it offends you, but that's life in rotorhead-world!) Akradecki 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't apply "drive" to lift off the ground, either. My point, restated, yet again, is that lineage does not a variant make. A variant is, "Something that differs in form only slightly from something else." In your lineage analogy, we're looking for the brothers and sisters, not the children and grandchildren. Now, when they come up with the section called Derivatives, or Lineage (other than designation sequences), I don't think I'd have anything to argue against. (Born2flie 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] TH-57 SeaRanger

An IP editor removed the portion of the article claiming the U.S. Coast Guard operates the TH-57. I can only assume this is true because the Navy conducts flight training for the Coast Guard. I know that this is also true of the Marine Corps, so the Marines don't actually own TH-57s for the purpose of training, only the Navy does. In fact, the Marines' website[3] and the Coast Guard website[4] do not list the TH-57, but the Navy website does.[5] –Born2flie 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign?

One reference (I'll have to look for it) made the claim that an Italian firm did the body redesign of the Bell 206 that became the Bell 206A JetRanger. I don't know how accurate that is, but I would like to find a reference that gave the name of the design firm or whatever that gave the facelift. --Born2flie 03:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever it was, they did a great job! Would be nice to give them credit where it's due. - BillCJ 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian Operators

Are there any significant civilian operators of the B206? --Born2flie 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillsboro Aviation in Hillsboro, Oregon operates Bell JetRanger helicopters almost exclusively in terms of rotary aircraft, and also charters a Bell 206BIII JetRanger with glass cockpit (tail number N636ES) for Mt. St. Helens helicopter tours.
KOMO-TV in Seattle also used to operate a JetRanger, but replaced it with a 407 sometime in 1997 or 1998. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 206 and World Records

I didn't know this, but H. Ross Perot made the first circumnavigation of the globe by helicopter (Bell 206L-1 Long Ranger II, Spirit of Texas) in 1982.[6] The record was set again, circa 1998, by a 206B-3. A new record setting attempt to circumnavigate the globe from pole to pole is also being conducted in a 206. --Born2flie 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for those who may not have heard of this, that Perot is the son of the one who ran for President twice. He is also alot taller than his dad. I have a photo in a source, and also remeber seeing him with his dad on TV during the 1992 pres race. Would love to find a little more on all these attempts. - BillCJ 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)