Bell versus others
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHT have started their "Restructure", with the new CEO Mike R's appointment a while back.
Now address the immediate replacement of that idiot “Flight Nurse” Guru in charge of “Sales” [or lack of sales!!].
Prospective buyers wish to talk with seasoned and knowledgeable “experts” when investing their money. Not Silver-tongued upstarts, that are plainly unsuccessful.
Now address the immediate replacement of that idiot “Flight Nurse” Guru in charge of “Sales” [or lack of sales!!].
Prospective buyers wish to talk with seasoned and knowledgeable “experts” when investing their money. Not Silver-tongued upstarts, that are plainly unsuccessful.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren why not a Pratt & Whitney engine. It's produced in North America. The 200 series is small and produces good power (a quote from P&WC's website "The engine provides from 621 to 710 Shp (takeoff, thermodynamic) with growth versions up to 950 Shp in development."). You can also get parts for the thing. Unlike another manufacturer who is of European ownership but will remain nameless.
Anyone have any experience with a gen failure ?? How long do these fancy tv's stay working after the batt dies ??
Otherwise a great list of ideas !!!
Cheers
4. No steam gauges, please. Show 'em American ingenuity and bring in glass.
Otherwise a great list of ideas !!!
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren, which rock are you living under? C30 engine? Why go back to caveman technology? Even a C47 is light years ahead.
What you have described is probably an EC130 if you want all those things, or as close as you can get today.
Stick a PWC 207 in it just to keep you happy.
There is no "universal" helicopter that will keep everyone happy. Too many with different interests involved, pilot, owner, operator and customer, all have different priorities.
What you have described is probably an EC130 if you want all those things, or as close as you can get today.
Stick a PWC 207 in it just to keep you happy.
There is no "universal" helicopter that will keep everyone happy. Too many with different interests involved, pilot, owner, operator and customer, all have different priorities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Gio, Ok Randy, the PWC is just fine. C 30 is pre-historic, you are right. EC-130 has poor range, kinda like the LR IV otherwise a great ship - time will tell. Good luck to EC and EADS.
The statement, Gio, about "universal" helicopter is pretty obvious, huh? You can apply that to anything. Cars, boats, bikes, women .... I guess the KEY to happy Bell ownership (and maybe to a long lasting marriage as well) is LOW expectations. Low expectations in design shapes (210, 407, etc), low expectations in flying speed, technology, low expectations in time Bell takes to fix problems (ergo T&T straps, usual cracks in fuselage, cork used as seal in its transmissions, 407 TR), etc.
I love the safety, low DoC, and feel of Bell ships but you gotta admit they're losing market share right? The purpose of this thread is to HELP Bell realise they're asleep at the wheel with the cruise control set, not to build a "universal" ship. Now back to my (Ayers) Rock .....
The statement, Gio, about "universal" helicopter is pretty obvious, huh? You can apply that to anything. Cars, boats, bikes, women .... I guess the KEY to happy Bell ownership (and maybe to a long lasting marriage as well) is LOW expectations. Low expectations in design shapes (210, 407, etc), low expectations in flying speed, technology, low expectations in time Bell takes to fix problems (ergo T&T straps, usual cracks in fuselage, cork used as seal in its transmissions, 407 TR), etc.
I love the safety, low DoC, and feel of Bell ships but you gotta admit they're losing market share right? The purpose of this thread is to HELP Bell realise they're asleep at the wheel with the cruise control set, not to build a "universal" ship. Now back to my (Ayers) Rock .....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren,
It may help to clear the air if you state any connection you have with any particular helicopter manufacturer or distributorship?
It seems you give a little with one hand and take a scoop with the other, which is absolutely fine, provided you do it out in the open.
It may help to clear the air if you state any connection you have with any particular helicopter manufacturer or distributorship?
It seems you give a little with one hand and take a scoop with the other, which is absolutely fine, provided you do it out in the open.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all love to complain about that dreaded "broom closet" in the 206 series. But to eliminate it would require a MAJOR fuselage redesign. It's nice to have the transmission right over the cabin. In the 206B, the c.g. hardly changes at all from empty to full. One less thing to worry about.
Eliminating the broom closet would mean that the flight controls would have to go rearward, then up, then forward to the trans. Not a good idea, especially since it would be impossible to relocate the hydraulic servos. Not only that, to run the flight controls under the cabin would require a much deeper fuselage and maybe even a tunnel through the main fuel tank which is right in the way. Deeper fuselage rules out the spiffy low-skid version- okay, no big deal there.
The 206 cabin is a good news/bad news kind of thing. It is a very light but relatively weak composite structure, suspended as it is from the trans deck. It crushes easily, as we all have painfully seen from accident photos. That stout bulkhead is needed to give strength, but it's a bad compromise. The landing gear has nothing solid to bolt onto, and the rear crosstube slice right through the fuel tank in a hard landing. Similarly, the cargo hook is not mounted to anything substantial (not even the bulkhead), as there can be no straight line between the bottom of the trans and the hook itself (like in the UH-1/205).
If Bell decided to do away with the current trans/engine deck setup, which really is the backbone of the ship, then they'd probably move the transmission aft. Now the ship would start to look like an Astar/EC120/BO105 etc. Put a fenestron on and we've just reinvented the Gazelle (albeit one with a bigger, fatter cabin). That current little monocoque tube of a tailboom probably wouldn't support the weight of a fenestron. And a "real" (e.g. 205-like) tailboom couldn't even be bolted up to that cheezy composite aft fuselage anyway.
So you see, any suggestion to change even one thing about the current 206 means a total redesign. Is Bell going to put up the money for that when just about evey dime is going into 609 development? Not hardly. What could they do to make a better ship than the 350? It would have to have some spectacular technology, and I don't see that happening.
When the 206 first came out, it's only real competition was the Hiller FH1100. (And don't even try to bring up the H-500. As a civilian corporate/charter ship, the 500 was just not in the same league.) Due to...whatever circumstances...the Hiller languished and the Bell thrived. For a decade (until the Astar came out) Bell had the market basically to themselves. How lucky can a manufacturer get! How many thousands of 206 variants have been built now?
Does Bell think that they could develop another helicopter that could possibly be that successful? Probably not. Best case, how many total units could we be talking about? 500? 1,000? Maybe...if they're lucky. And to do that, they'd probably have to kill off the 206 model line for good, to eliminate in-house competition. Could they turn a profit on 1,000 airframes? Maybe, but damn, they'd have to be expensive.
"206's" come along once in a lifetime, like the Douglas DC-3 or Boeing 737. Do not look for Bell to change the 206 or even replace it. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on a civvie version of the OH-58D.
Eliminating the broom closet would mean that the flight controls would have to go rearward, then up, then forward to the trans. Not a good idea, especially since it would be impossible to relocate the hydraulic servos. Not only that, to run the flight controls under the cabin would require a much deeper fuselage and maybe even a tunnel through the main fuel tank which is right in the way. Deeper fuselage rules out the spiffy low-skid version- okay, no big deal there.
The 206 cabin is a good news/bad news kind of thing. It is a very light but relatively weak composite structure, suspended as it is from the trans deck. It crushes easily, as we all have painfully seen from accident photos. That stout bulkhead is needed to give strength, but it's a bad compromise. The landing gear has nothing solid to bolt onto, and the rear crosstube slice right through the fuel tank in a hard landing. Similarly, the cargo hook is not mounted to anything substantial (not even the bulkhead), as there can be no straight line between the bottom of the trans and the hook itself (like in the UH-1/205).
If Bell decided to do away with the current trans/engine deck setup, which really is the backbone of the ship, then they'd probably move the transmission aft. Now the ship would start to look like an Astar/EC120/BO105 etc. Put a fenestron on and we've just reinvented the Gazelle (albeit one with a bigger, fatter cabin). That current little monocoque tube of a tailboom probably wouldn't support the weight of a fenestron. And a "real" (e.g. 205-like) tailboom couldn't even be bolted up to that cheezy composite aft fuselage anyway.
So you see, any suggestion to change even one thing about the current 206 means a total redesign. Is Bell going to put up the money for that when just about evey dime is going into 609 development? Not hardly. What could they do to make a better ship than the 350? It would have to have some spectacular technology, and I don't see that happening.
When the 206 first came out, it's only real competition was the Hiller FH1100. (And don't even try to bring up the H-500. As a civilian corporate/charter ship, the 500 was just not in the same league.) Due to...whatever circumstances...the Hiller languished and the Bell thrived. For a decade (until the Astar came out) Bell had the market basically to themselves. How lucky can a manufacturer get! How many thousands of 206 variants have been built now?
Does Bell think that they could develop another helicopter that could possibly be that successful? Probably not. Best case, how many total units could we be talking about? 500? 1,000? Maybe...if they're lucky. And to do that, they'd probably have to kill off the 206 model line for good, to eliminate in-house competition. Could they turn a profit on 1,000 airframes? Maybe, but damn, they'd have to be expensive.
"206's" come along once in a lifetime, like the Douglas DC-3 or Boeing 737. Do not look for Bell to change the 206 or even replace it. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on a civvie version of the OH-58D.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiller problems
Due to...whatever circumstances...the Hiller languished and the Bell thrived.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Man Rotor. Nothing to declare except my sanity. Retired businessman, ex retailer, on the West Coast mostly. Private Owner, nothing to do with Aviation business. Own B206III, B2, Grand Caravan, Tiger Moth and other planes. Don't own any stocks in Textron or Airlines. Patriotic American (but I don't support the US Patriot Act and people behind it). Sad to see US civil aviation getting a hammering and want to give great feedback so they can build better ships. Are you ex Bell?
Gregg - tried giving Bell feedback in phone survey and paper qustionaiire - no actions to date. Prefer to get grassroots movement going. Great believer in not giving up against big bureacracies.
Fan#1. Thanks. You summed it well. But I have seen great industrial turnarounds before. Textron shareholders and the pilots are key to this turnaround. Sometimes the simplest of decisions makes a difference.
Gregg - tried giving Bell feedback in phone survey and paper qustionaiire - no actions to date. Prefer to get grassroots movement going. Great believer in not giving up against big bureacracies.
Fan#1. Thanks. You summed it well. But I have seen great industrial turnarounds before. Textron shareholders and the pilots are key to this turnaround. Sometimes the simplest of decisions makes a difference.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Message to Warran, Bell and others.
This thread is the most interesting that has come along recently and is showing up real positive thoughts.
It seems that we 'love' dear ol' Bell and really want to help to get a modern light single/twin on the drawing board.
It is not unusual that we all have brilliant ideas and cures for all sorts of helicopter maladies.
So would it not be a starter that Bell send out a questionnaie to discover what the market place is looking for in a light single/twin.
A list has been set out above, so I'd like to add my own.
1. PW 207 engines on the twin, PT6 for the single
2. No broom cupboard, flight controls routed up the door support frames or up the windscreen frame by cables.
3. Rotor speed control on the twin.
4. Flat floor with rails for the passenger seating. User to chose seating arrangement.
5. Large fuel capacity to allow for 4 hour endurance at sea level.
6. EFIS instruments with a FLI like the EC series
7. Low noise tail rotor/ anti-torque system. mounted on pylon.
8. Crew doors which enable ease of access.
9. Sliding doors for passengers, operated electrically by crew.
10. Skid landing gear like EC120.
There are many more 'wants' but this is just a pointer for Bell.
The industry would be in a worse state if Bell is no longer a participant. For the user, healthy competion is a definite requirement.
This thread is the most interesting that has come along recently and is showing up real positive thoughts.
It seems that we 'love' dear ol' Bell and really want to help to get a modern light single/twin on the drawing board.
It is not unusual that we all have brilliant ideas and cures for all sorts of helicopter maladies.
So would it not be a starter that Bell send out a questionnaie to discover what the market place is looking for in a light single/twin.
A list has been set out above, so I'd like to add my own.
1. PW 207 engines on the twin, PT6 for the single
2. No broom cupboard, flight controls routed up the door support frames or up the windscreen frame by cables.
3. Rotor speed control on the twin.
4. Flat floor with rails for the passenger seating. User to chose seating arrangement.
5. Large fuel capacity to allow for 4 hour endurance at sea level.
6. EFIS instruments with a FLI like the EC series
7. Low noise tail rotor/ anti-torque system. mounted on pylon.
8. Crew doors which enable ease of access.
9. Sliding doors for passengers, operated electrically by crew.
10. Skid landing gear like EC120.
There are many more 'wants' but this is just a pointer for Bell.
The industry would be in a worse state if Bell is no longer a participant. For the user, healthy competion is a definite requirement.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the Costs
If you take the cost of a used Bell 206 product, it is equal to the value of the components on the machine.
What that tells us is that the fuselage is worth the grand total of zero. I believe that there is a market for modifications of the 206 line, however I think think that Bell are not the ones to do it. They're too lazy an organization.
We will need some more significant changes at Bell before we see any support for the bottom of the fleet.
What that tells us is that the fuselage is worth the grand total of zero. I believe that there is a market for modifications of the 206 line, however I think think that Bell are not the ones to do it. They're too lazy an organization.
We will need some more significant changes at Bell before we see any support for the bottom of the fleet.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Head Turner writes:"It seems that we 'love' dear ol' Bell "
Its the only reason I bitch about the Head Shed at that company. As I mentioned before its been a few thousand hours and 34 years in the product for me.
They just dont seem to listen to experience.
My first whine with them was when the Surplus Aircraft were about to hit the street. They could have made tons of money and a lot of those surplus aircraft could be working today. I dont need to hear anyone say how crappy they were as that is not true. Most were low time airframes, maintained to good standards.
Some are now slowly entering the Fire Market, such as the AH-1, and only thanks to some who had the power to push the programs. A bit late as many airframes and most surplus parts have been destroyed. Still a savings to the taxpayer.
The Russians are smarter than we are and have covered the Planet with all their old Military aircraft. They are the workhorse in Afirca and most other countries. I have flown in a few, they do the job.
As technology progresses, Im sure we will have something new on the plate from some Manufacturer, but until then Bell will still be out there. Today I think in the U.S. we could say that the 407 and the L Series are going strong, next to the AS-350.
Not much out there to compete with the 212, or 412 Money wise.
Bell was a very strong company during world war II for those of you who may remember the P-39 or the P-63. They did great during Vietnam and heres hoping they will rise above some recent attitudes.
Its the only reason I bitch about the Head Shed at that company. As I mentioned before its been a few thousand hours and 34 years in the product for me.
They just dont seem to listen to experience.
My first whine with them was when the Surplus Aircraft were about to hit the street. They could have made tons of money and a lot of those surplus aircraft could be working today. I dont need to hear anyone say how crappy they were as that is not true. Most were low time airframes, maintained to good standards.
Some are now slowly entering the Fire Market, such as the AH-1, and only thanks to some who had the power to push the programs. A bit late as many airframes and most surplus parts have been destroyed. Still a savings to the taxpayer.
The Russians are smarter than we are and have covered the Planet with all their old Military aircraft. They are the workhorse in Afirca and most other countries. I have flown in a few, they do the job.
As technology progresses, Im sure we will have something new on the plate from some Manufacturer, but until then Bell will still be out there. Today I think in the U.S. we could say that the 407 and the L Series are going strong, next to the AS-350.
Not much out there to compete with the 212, or 412 Money wise.
Bell was a very strong company during world war II for those of you who may remember the P-39 or the P-63. They did great during Vietnam and heres hoping they will rise above some recent attitudes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor Breeze March 2004
Has anyone read the TT Straps article?
Problem arose in 1976 (28 years ago!). In 2004 they are still working on the problem.
Is this a world record? Anyone out there know any problems with other brands that took 28 years (and counting) to address?
Problem arose in 1976 (28 years ago!). In 2004 they are still working on the problem.
Is this a world record? Anyone out there know any problems with other brands that took 28 years (and counting) to address?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here,there &everywhere
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we can find something wrong in all aircraft flying today.
As for the big "problem" on the AS350s with hydrolics-Eurocopter have bought out a mod so that all the accumulators deffinately dump at the same time.
Why don't we compare numbers?
From what I understand there are around 600 407s out there and more than 2500 AS350s out there.
How often do we hear about hydrolic problems?
How often do we hear about tail rotor problems?
Anyone got the figures?
As for the big "problem" on the AS350s with hydrolics-Eurocopter have bought out a mod so that all the accumulators deffinately dump at the same time.
Why don't we compare numbers?
From what I understand there are around 600 407s out there and more than 2500 AS350s out there.
How often do we hear about hydrolic problems?
How often do we hear about tail rotor problems?
Anyone got the figures?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit surprised to keep reading about hydraulic problems on the 350. I've only flown it for the past 19 years and have never had any hydraulic problem, not even a leak.
However I have had hydraulic problems on the S55, S61, S76, Wessex, Bell 47, 206, 212 and some other types I've flown, so in my simple opinion the 350 can't be too bad or am I just lucky?
However I have had hydraulic problems on the S55, S61, S76, Wessex, Bell 47, 206, 212 and some other types I've flown, so in my simple opinion the 350 can't be too bad or am I just lucky?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407 Driver - Never had a problem with the hydraulics on my B2. Can you tell me what's the deal with AS350 hydraulics? The question is not whether choppers have problems, but how long a manufacturer takes to fix a problem.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 350 Hydraulic issue is big in Canada now. There have been several AD's relating to upgrades to belt drives, fluid replacement, etc in the past while. . Check out Transport Canada, use C-FSLB as a registration, my old base 350.
There have been accidents ( Yes, in B2's !) that have claimed the lives of all on board.
The NYC accident last week is under investigation, what happened with that aircraft?? ...control was lost for some reason?? Should make you go Hmmmm?
I'd be researching these issues if I was strapped into one of those things.
Congrats on 19 years Nigel, I only have 2200 hours in them, but had to attend 3 accidents.....don't like them any more after viewing those scenes
(and going to funerals of best-friends really suks)
Dynamic, as with every manufacturer, information is not readily available, especially out of France. I'm not aware of any French website similar to the NTSB site in the USA...besides I don't read French if there was
As far as I know, there have been 3 Tailboom issues with 407s, plus the recent incident in S.A. where the T/R contacted the boom on shutdown. 4 aircraft out of 600 with approx 1.2 million total flight hours. Unacceptable numbers, I agree, but is that considered "rampant" throughout the fleet?
Warren, it's common knowledge that the HYD system in a 350 is underpowered, plus the green belt drives have been suspect for ages. The recent rash of incidents in Canada seem to be centered on servos though, both the Samm and Dunlop, something is happening in the system which can make the aircraft uncontrollable, particularily in Colder weather.
There have been accidents ( Yes, in B2's !) that have claimed the lives of all on board.
The NYC accident last week is under investigation, what happened with that aircraft?? ...control was lost for some reason?? Should make you go Hmmmm?
I'd be researching these issues if I was strapped into one of those things.
Congrats on 19 years Nigel, I only have 2200 hours in them, but had to attend 3 accidents.....don't like them any more after viewing those scenes
(and going to funerals of best-friends really suks)Dynamic, as with every manufacturer, information is not readily available, especially out of France. I'm not aware of any French website similar to the NTSB site in the USA...besides I don't read French if there was
As far as I know, there have been 3 Tailboom issues with 407s, plus the recent incident in S.A. where the T/R contacted the boom on shutdown. 4 aircraft out of 600 with approx 1.2 million total flight hours. Unacceptable numbers, I agree, but is that considered "rampant" throughout the fleet?
Warren, it's common knowledge that the HYD system in a 350 is underpowered, plus the green belt drives have been suspect for ages. The recent rash of incidents in Canada seem to be centered on servos though, both the Samm and Dunlop, something is happening in the system which can make the aircraft uncontrollable, particularily in Colder weather.
Last edited by 407 Driver; 12th May 2004 at 05:34.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here,there &everywhere
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407D,
From what I understand the AS350 thing has something to do with the accumulators not dumping at the same time in a hydraulic failure.
They now have a fix for this.(or so they say
)
Which one of the B2 accidents was to do with the hydraulics?
Just curious
From what I understand the AS350 thing has something to do with the accumulators not dumping at the same time in a hydraulic failure.
They now have a fix for this.(or so they say
)Which one of the B2 accidents was to do with the hydraulics?
Just curious
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Old Nigel.
Hey Mate.....there was a period of about 15 years that you would not have seen a 350 !!!
Is your statement not a little misleading???
How many 350 hours each year would be a fairer statement.
Is your statement not a little misleading???
How many 350 hours each year would be a fairer statement.