Jump to content

Talk:Bell 47/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Operators

Yugoslavian (Slovenian) police used italian built Agusta-Bell 47j with registration YU-HAK

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/slovenia/slov-police-aircraft.htm

End of Production

I question the dating of production. I've seen last U.S. built 1973, It built 1975, not 1974 end. Trekphiler 11:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By what reference do you question the end of production date? (Born2flie 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Whooshing

Isn't this the helicopter that makes that whooshing noise that all movie helicopters make?

Plagiarism?

I commented out a section until it can be determined the source hasn't been plagiarised. The similarities between the edit to this article, a website I found, and then the subsequent references to a published work are kind of questionable. (Born2flie 00:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

Eisenhower

My understanding is that the first US president's helicopter was not the Sioux, but the Ranger (Bell 47-J), which is also pictured on this page.

References: http://www.teamus101.com/333.cfm http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=569

One of your references (the official Air Force one) refers to the aircraft as the UH-13J Sioux. The commercial name of the Bell model 47J is "Ranger", but that doesn't mean the name translates over to military designations. (Born2flie 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
Another source for Eisenhower aircraft: Time magazine. --Born2flie (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary user

The US Army never operated Bell 47s at all. There is a very good reason, a necessity, for military designations, so that the service can control exactly the version and equipment of their types. There is a solution - make an article for the H-13. It will have to be done eventually to get in all the information [1]. The article could contain endless detail and history. It could be a fine thing, and there would be no question about the primary user. Meggar 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the H-13s certainly weren't Bell 214STs! They were 47s, just designated H-13 by the Army. This article covers both the military and civilian models, as do many aircraft articles. Maybe later on, someone will put together enough info for a full article on the H-13 military models, with more civilian content here. As for now, if you can get a concensus to change this one to H-13 Sioux, go ahead and try. But the only thing that will cange is the title, and it will still be about the Bell 47. --BillCJ 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

M.A.S.H. picture?

Should the M.A.S.H. paint scheme aircraft picture be moved to the Popular Culture section? (Born2flie 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

I tried it there recently, but it didn't look right. Right now its just above the Pop-culture section; on my browswer, it hangs into that section. Take a stab at it if you'd like. -- BillCJ 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How does it look from there now? Is that model authentic for MASH use, or were they an older model with the single tank? Meggar 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
On my browser, there's a big gap to the bottom-left of the pic. If it looks better on other set-ups, then fine; I can live with it. I tried to get it to hang into the references section when I worked on it, but couldn't. -- BillCJ 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill, it looked better before. I think you were right when you had put it back. I didn't mean for you to move it. Meggar, are you sure the version they used for the TV show wasn't perfectly authentic? (Born2flie 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Actually, Meggar had moved it this time. I took out a line that was preventing the pic from hanging down into the References section, so it looks better now. But if we agree where we had it before is best, that's OK too. -- BillCJ 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The photo looks to be of aircraft VH-LEH, a G-5 built in 1967, long after the war. If so then it is not authentic and shouln't be here. Meggar 03:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrong model built sixteen years after the war with MASH painted on the side is not good enought for an encylopedia. It wouldn't have been good enough for the movie or tv show either where they managed to use a correct type. There are archive photos that could be used here and real ones in museums to be photographed. Meggar 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

USCG

Born2flie: Davidbspalding {{cn}} tagged the reference to the USCG as a Bell 47 user. The U.S. Navy selected Bell 47J Rangers as their instrument helicopter trainer over the Cessna CH-1 back in the late 1950s. I know that the USN conducts flight training for USCG helicopter pilots. Not sure if this is what the individual who included the reference intended or not. --03:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, before making an edit, I did a bit of research in History of Coast Guard Aviation, by Arthur Pearcy (who had access to CG records).

First flow on 8 Dec 1945, and granted the first-ever US type approval for a commercial helicopter during March 1946, the Bell Model 47 was still in production twenty years later for both civil and military users. A number of different versions were procured for US Navy use between 1947 and 1958, some of these models going to the Coast Guard. Designated Bell HTL-1, these were part of a service evaluation as training helicopters, powered by a 178 hip Franklin 0-335-1 engine. Only two HTL-1s were purchased by the Coast Guard and were used for a survey of the New York Harbor area under the direction of the Capt. Of the Port of New York, checking for smuggling, harbor pollution, sabotage and other maritime derelictions. They usually had floats attached, although they were sometimes flown on skids.

The major US Navy version of the Bell 47 was the HTL-4, which dispensed with the fabric covering on the rear fuselage framework. The HTL-5 was similar and was powered by a Franklin 0-335-5 engine. Three of this type of Bell helicopter were purchased by the Coast Guard in 1952, and were assigned USCG numbers 1268 to 1270. … They were used on a variety of missions, but their relatively small size and short range limited their effectiveness. They served until 1960. In 1955 a Navy Bell HTL-4 BuNo 128623 equipped with floats was procured by the Coast Guard. This two-seat single-engined helicopter was used for ice reconnaissance work in Alaska on the USCG cutter Storis. It was also used for search and rescue and limited logistics support.

During 1959 two Bell model 47G helicopters with the designation HUL-1G were purchased and operated by the Coast Guard until 8 Dec 1967. These helicopters were fitted with floats and were also used for ice reconnaissance duties from USCG flight deck equipped ships in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. The helicopters were based at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, AK. They were designated HH-13Q during 1962.

— Arthur Pearcy, A History of Coast Guard Aviation
So I stand corrected. NOW I need to put some of this into the article. :D David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. I added 5 sourced sentences describing notable use in MASH and Whirlybird. This is because the information does not appear elsewhere. In the pop cult article, there are bulleted items with no source or claim for notability and that is why it is up for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture. I do not recommend a See Main Article wikilink with absolutely no context as to why. I'm open to listening to your feedback, of course. Canuckle 23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The above topic was marked as a "minor edit" due to my clumsy fingers. Dont read anything into that. Canuckle 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop-culture items in aircraft articles are usually limited to one sentence noting the appearance, and that's usually all. Of course, references are good, and if a reference has more detail on the appearance, that's fine. But the details of the apperances should go in the show article, not the aircraft article. I'll concede kepping the mentions for the sake of peace, at least until the AfD is decided. If the article is kept, then I'll move the references there. - BillCJ 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My major problem with the AfD is that in the past, ALMOST NONE of those who vote to delete the trivia articles have ever visited the aircraft articles in question, much less devoted their time to keeping the aircraft articles cruft-free. If you're willing to put in your time to keep the other cruft out of this article if the pop-culture page is deleted, fine, then this is one less article I have to watch. But experience has taught me to be wary of editors I haven;t seen editing on aircraft pages before. I've been thinking of raising the issue of banning all pop-culture appearences at WP:AIR, and this last AfD has just about convinced me to do so. It's alot easier to say No to all cruft than to explain why someone's favorite game or cartoon is not as notable as M*A*S*H, something (to them) that only their parents watch! - BillCJ 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I hear you. I've recently entirely rewritten (with help) one 'in pop culture' article to save it from the trash heap and also helped fend off everyone's favourite goon being added when Fighting in ice hockey made it to the front page as a featured article. I find it best (in mylimited experience) to nail down the criteria as much as possible. Nature and new users abhor a vaccuum and if there isn't an explicit indication of why a depiction is the most notable, then all sorts of trivial cruft will appear. I think a complete ban is overkill but some best practices or better guidelines could help. I agree that many votes are cast rather casually with no follow-up. Anyone voting to Delete or Keep should be made to commit to spending 5 minutes improving an article. Later. Canuckle 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also watched Whirlybirds when I was a kid. I really must be old fart! lol! I did save the following for y'all... (just in case you two were having withdrawls....lol):

Movies:

Television:

and managed a link to an archive page to the "big list" if you want it. ( I can vision Bill shaking his head, and saying.... "Oh great!! ) LanceBarber 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

So, if this helicopter was the first certified for civilian use, does that mean it was the first to be used for aerial film photography? Sounds like a notable use. I saw a few sources that hinted at that but none that came out explicitly and spelled it out. Canuckle 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That earliest certified record was only a few days ahead the civil S-51. There were many military helicopters working before that and no doubt were use for photography.Meggar 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture removal

Meggar, you do not have a consensus to remove the Pop culture section, so please stop. There are MANY aircraft articles with these sections, including helicopter pages. Pop-culture sections have not been banned (as much as I would like that), but we do try to limit then to only notable appearances. M*A*S*H is definitely notable, and Whirlybirds is not far from it, though it's hard for me to judge on that one, since its a bit before my time. If you want to remove the entire sections from any or all aircraft pages, you'll need to get a consensus at WP:AIR or MILHIST first. I've been considering proposing that myself, just looking for a few other editors to co-sponsor it. Until then, notable appearances are allowed, and these two are notable. - BillCJ 08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ - That's a good warning you added. I'm going to steal it for adapting and use on other articles. Canuckle 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, I should clarify. That's a good "No Cruft" warning BillCJ added in Hidden Text to the article. Didn't mean any comment on BillCJ's comment just above. Canuckle 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's meant to be "stolen"! Just use {{subst:NoMoreCruft}}, in case you hadn't figured that out. Feel free to make changes to the {{NoMoreCruft}} template if needed, or make your own template for you own adaptations. - BillCJ 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence was reomved to Talk page as I'm not sure the source is authoritative enough.
The distinctive "chirping" sound of the Bell 47 powering down is used by movie sound editors for any helicopter landing. [2] Canuckle 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel Good Inc

Im pretty sure these were used as the antagonist in the video feel good inc. Is it worth adding something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.249.209 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Images moved

Folks, After reading some of the comments and thoughts above, I adjusted some of the images' locations to spread them out and relate the pic with the text or section. I also took a pic of the "MASH" chopper at the Pueblo Museum and added it in. Hope I helped. If I missed something or unrelated a meaning one may had done, please correct. Also, the russian.ee ref has been updated to an aviastar.org site, so i did a fix before the redirected web link becomes a 404 error. Lance.... LanceBarber 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

47G at SAAF Museum

I have added this craft under Survivors, but am not sure where it is located at the moment. When the cockpit photo File:Bell 47G Sioux HT mk2 Interior-001.jpg was taken in 2007 it was in Port Elizabeth, but Friends of the SAAF Museum society lists it at being at Swartkop while SA Transport lists it as being at Port Elizabeth. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bell 47/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.

Changed class of article to Stub. Needs much more of the history and less trivia. Very little is covered of the development which inlcudes the Bell model 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2flie (talk • contribs)

Last edited at 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

so why are the 47H & J listed as Bell products...?

Responding to the hidden comment - The 47Gs appear to have been in production later than the 47H and J. The 1971–72 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft lists the 47GT-3B-2, 47G-4A and 47G-5 as still being in production in 1971.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Later models don;t always outlive earlier ones in production. That is up to the customers and was the case wit the "G" model. I have clarified the wording and removed the hidden note. I hope that will suffice? - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a bit better, but, "in production" as of when? My confusion comes from the existence of the H & J, which follow in sequence; it appears they didn't last as long in production, & I'm having trouble figuring out how to word it: maybe (in ref the G) "remained in production after the H & J ceased production" (without repetition, of course). OK? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that would be just about ideal! - Ahunt (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
TYVM. :D Elvis buzz the building 10:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Found an additional Bell in static display in Santa Cruz de Tenerife

What is the best way to add this information? I am pretty sure I have the serial number correct plus the photos of the aircraft I took today.

It is located at the Museo Historico Militar de Canarias. Fuquar7 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The best way is to cite a reliable published source per WP:RS. BilCat (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_47/Archive_1&oldid=1216889409"