Jump to content

Talk:Cessna 206

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


Cessna 207 photo

[edit]

Cessna 207s are pretty rare and difficult to find to photograph! I have added a link to a photo of a Cessna 207 since we do not have one to upload to the article for now. This link can be removed once someone finds a good photo that can be legally uploaded to the article. Ahunt 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

move to Cessna 206

[edit]

Many more 206's were produced than 5's or 7's. The 206 is still in production. Hence rename. Paul Beardsell 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P for People?

[edit]

"1965 saw the P206 added to the line. In this case the “P” stood for “people” (...)" => surely that's actually for 'passengers'?--Cancun771 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ref cited said "people", but could be in error, if you can find a better ref it can be changed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bush plane?

[edit]

It says the type became a popular bush plane. Aren't bush planes supposed to have conventional landing gear? --Cancun771 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, some bushplanes have nosewheel gear, as it makes for shorter take-off distances, due to less drag from a lower wing angle of attack while accelerating. - Ahunt (talk)

Splitting of article

[edit]

Shouldn't the article be split into several pages each with info about the Cessna 205, 206, and 207 since the page contains info about all those planes, but the page is named "Cessna 206"? Epic leafs fan 420 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to justify splitting off the 207, but based on what's in the article the 205 and 206 are probably too similar to warrent splitting, with the prospective 205 article looking rather stubby. I note that the article doesn't really explain the difference between the 205 and 206.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 206 was a 205 with a IO-520-A engine and a 42" starboard double cargo door and a port pilot entry door and 3600lb TOGW. The 207 was basically a stretched 206 so not that much different from each other. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Boeing 720 was basically a shrunk 707 so not that much different from each other." Yet is has its own article. May I suggest to take a look at my article de:Cessna 207? Merry Christmas. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to split these three types off if sufficient refs and text to make reasonable articles can be found. One argument in favour of splitting them is that all three types have separate type certificates, although the 205 is technically a variant of the 210 by its TC. - Ahunt (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, then shouldn't the article be renamed "Cessna 205, 206, and 207" or something like that? Epic leafs fan 420 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well currently the predominate type by numbers is the 206, so that is what the article title reflects. The 205 and 207 are less-produced variants. We don't normally name aircraft type articles after all the variants listed on the page, but do have redirects from them. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Epic leafs fan 420 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cessna 206/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.

206 is one of the most popular small aircraft in the world with a very high production number. Assessed "High" The article has fairly broad coverage of the technical detail of the variants, but generally the text is quite terse and I think none of the sections is particularly well developed. The lead section would need to have a few more good paragraphs of information for this to become a B. The Land 12:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cessna 206. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cessna 206. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cessna 206. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents involving...

[edit]

apparently the plane at the start of this dramatic story was a 206; maybe someone who's had more coffee than I have can figure a way to insert it into the article that meets wikipedia's standards for verification & whatnot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65871238

duncanrmi (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but that accident does not meet our inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Basically hundreds of 206s have crashed and we only include accidents where there are lasting effects (such as airworthiness directives) or where notable people were killed (who already have a bio article on Wikipedia). - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have a crash article at 2023 Colombia Cessna 206 crash. Given that the 4 children were rescued weeks after the crash, I don't see this article being deleted, as that likely makes the incident notable. As such, it makes sense to list the accident here too. If the article is deleted, then of course it should be removed here too. BilCat (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: Adam, I had waited for you to reply to this for several hours, but apparently you had already gone offline for the night. I went ahead and restored this, as it will probably be added back soon any by someone else. (At this way we get a properly written version!) BilCat (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense now that we have an article on it, but, that said, the article is just 100% WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't when I reverted you! Now with a custody battle going on, it's no longer even about the crash. I guess we'll just have to until it leaves the news cycle, and then deal with it then. BilCat (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see you removed that. I am sure it will be back. I guess we will have to wait 12 months or so and then send it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just move it back to 2023 Colombia Amazon child rescue, and quit pretending it's a crash article. Then we can just link to it in the see also section. BilCat (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, but it still fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cessna_206&oldid=1206601756"