Bell 212 Shark Fin?
The Dihedral Sail (Fin) was only installed on the Bell Scas machines and not on the Sperry or Sfena equipped birds. When the Scas worked it was great...the Sperry with out the FD's were okay, with the FD's it was wonderful, the Sfena was useless for reliability....never did fly with one that worked.
Yes the fin used to be required for SCAS but is no longer needed. A company I used to work for had one 212 with fin another one without, both SCAS equipped. I never could tell any difference but some said it would maintain better dihedral stability in turns.
Yehh whatever, better have some real autopilots in the thing instead of Micky Mouse SCAS when flying hard IFR.
Yehh whatever, better have some real autopilots in the thing instead of Micky Mouse SCAS when flying hard IFR.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The shark fin was required as an FAA official felt the machine had too much directional stability. How he managed to get that through as there is very little in the certification requirements about lateral directional stability is beyond me.
The issue was that with too much directional stability, the machine might be prone to negative spiral mode (i.e. it would roll into a turn or, put another way, require out of turn cyclic to maintain an angle of bank).
Rumor has it that when he retired, the shark fins could be removed... Hopefully someone will correct that if it's wrong.
The issue was that with too much directional stability, the machine might be prone to negative spiral mode (i.e. it would roll into a turn or, put another way, require out of turn cyclic to maintain an angle of bank).
Rumor has it that when he retired, the shark fins could be removed... Hopefully someone will correct that if it's wrong.
Luxury! When I was a lad...
. After a 40kt run on landing to the rig we would fly home, get beaten with razor wire
, forced to dring avtur and made to leave on the next sortie 1 hour before we got back and made to sleep in a wet paper bag in middle of the road
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lost in thought
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've all danced around it - but missed the real issue..... The 212 had a single thread AFCS. If that one system failed, you had nothing but the basic handling qualities of the airframe. The basic airframe did not provide sufficient inherent lateral stability to meet IFR handling requirements. Hence the big fin on the roof (It's for lateral stability - not yaw).
In the 412 the fin went away because they went to a redundant AFCS. Most other newer IFR machines out there have redundant systems - dual or better - so that a single failure still leaves you with SAS capability. You still have to have reasonable handling after a dual failure to "white knuckle" fly for 30 minutes. But the workload is allowed to be higher since it takes two failures to get there.
If the stability after a dual failure is not good enough, the Authorities drive you to a 3rd level of SAS. For example, I understand the EC-135 has a "limp home" SAS capability using some extra pitch and roll rate sensors that are plumbed into the actuators when both FCCs fail. It's not fully triplex (since it uses the same actuators) but it's close.
Hope that helps.
Avnx EO
In the 412 the fin went away because they went to a redundant AFCS. Most other newer IFR machines out there have redundant systems - dual or better - so that a single failure still leaves you with SAS capability. You still have to have reasonable handling after a dual failure to "white knuckle" fly for 30 minutes. But the workload is allowed to be higher since it takes two failures to get there.
If the stability after a dual failure is not good enough, the Authorities drive you to a 3rd level of SAS. For example, I understand the EC-135 has a "limp home" SAS capability using some extra pitch and roll rate sensors that are plumbed into the actuators when both FCCs fail. It's not fully triplex (since it uses the same actuators) but it's close.
Hope that helps.
Avnx EO
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sleep. We used to dream of having sleep. Our boss to used to strap us to the seats of our Bell 47's, glue our eyes open with loctite and make us fly without cyclics or radios or even a GPS. He sold the cyclics to raise money to buy stock whips to thrash us with and then made us navigate around the desert using maps and compasses. You tell young pilots of today this and they wont believe you.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Wilson, WY
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell 212 "Shark" Fin
I realize that these posts are dated but we recently have taken responsibility for a 1977 212 that has the Dihedral Sail. In the Flight Safety training manual it states (as an addendum) "The dihedral sail, initially an integral part of the FFA IFR Package, is no longer needed. There appears to be some discussion that it actually flies better w/o the sail (understanding that this aircraft has a single channel stab system) any feedback from the field. I flew the UH-1N (granted a different stab system) which did not have the sail.
We cannot find any notification nor service bulletin that allows for the removal of the sail.
We cannot find any notification nor service bulletin that allows for the removal of the sail.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB 212-94-151 is the bulletin that allows the removal of fin P/N 212-030-498-001 installed on IFR configured aircraft.
Flew a lot of night and zero horizon crappy day ops in the basic 212 that were not configured with SCAS and although it was hands on there were no stability issues....did appreciate the force trim though.
Flew a lot of night and zero horizon crappy day ops in the basic 212 that were not configured with SCAS and although it was hands on there were no stability issues....did appreciate the force trim though.
