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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Dont see it being really notable so I have pruned it down to one sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
