Bell 417

[widgeon]

There's some conjecture that Bell will follow Agusta's lead and offer a single angine version of the 427.
Dya think it would sell?

[The Nr Fairy]

You mean a single engine 427 wouldn't be a JetRanger ?

[Avnx EO]

Yeah, right....:rolleyes: Right after Eurocopter comes out with a single engien EC-135.:D

[helimutt]

so how many engines does the EC120 have then?

[widgeon]

When I first saw the EC130 I thought it could use another engine , don't think the Germans would be too happy though.

[ppheli]

Agusta are not exactly busting a gut to product 119s. They have built 24 so far and I can find at least a couple for sale on the web.

But Bell are pretty desparate to find something which sells right now in the civil market, so maybe it is true?

[Aladdinsane]

As soon as the clowns in R&D at Fort Worth get some fresh pieces of paper out and start to design something new without tracing over some blueprints that are over thirty years old, maybe then we can start to take them seriously. Like have you seen the back end of the JRX yet? A handfull of screws and twenty minutes just to have a good look at the TRGB.

[chopperdr]

what bell needs to do is basically a knockoff ec-120 with a pw 209, metal fuselage, with bell quality doors, and then you would have something to sell. concerning the 417, were they possibly confusing this with the bell 210.

[TwinHueyMan]

I believe it was me you heard talking about the "417". I learned of the idea from a flight test report on the 427 over at Aviation International News Online, story here:

http://www.ainonline.com/Features/Pilotreports2000/AIN_pr_bell427.html

The following is from the above story:

"In the meantime, there could be a side-step in Bell product evolution. Emblin gave a hint of one model that may be down the road when he said, "The normal evolution at Bell has been to add an engine to a single-engine helicopter to create a twin. But the twin-engine aspect of the 407 didn’t really pan out and we ended up creating a whole new fuselage for the 427. Some of us sitting on the sidelines have thought, ‘Hey, we really have a winner fuselage here, why don’t we go backward to a single?’ All you need is a good, powerful engine."

After having a close look at Bell’s new light twin, a single-engine derivative of the 427 doesn’t seem that preposterous."

Emblin being Eric Emblin, Senior Test Pilot at BHTI.

Hey, it might work. From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers (which I don't buy for a minute, might I add :) and a single engined 8 place chopper, with a big, open, flat floor and a new design (the 427 may look like classic Bell, but a quick overlook of the Product Data Book/ production pictures and you can tell its different in construction) might be a winner. They've somehow crammed over 200 gallons of fuel in the 427, and if you could get a powerful, efficent single engine up top (new, bigger Allison 250 maybe?), we could see 500 mile ranges and 5 hour endurances...

What do you guys think?

Mike

[Captain Lai Hai]

Christ who wants to spend 5 hours at a go pilots or passengers in seats offered in current helicopters........

[flyer43]

TwinHueyMan

"From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers ..."

I'm glad that you don't buy the above suggestion, but where does this info really come from. What is it about twin-engined helicopters that makes them dreaded and hated by everybody?? Other than the over cost concious client, I fund it hard to believe why anybody would be so averse.......

Anybody out there got any ideas??

:confused:

[TwinHueyMan]

Some selected excerpts:

"But single engines are cheaper to operate, more reliable-even if not more durable-and more comfortable."

"Single engines are cheaper and more reliable."

"Did I mention single engines are cheaper and more reliable?"

"Finally-I do EMS, and lot of hospital programs are hanging up the twins and going single engine. Single engines are cheaper and more reliable. My position is that they're safer too-a lot of hospitals, other operators, and the FAA seem to believe that, as well."

"There is a very good reason twin-engined light helicopters don't sell in the US. It's called economics. They have niche roles, but the niches are small & narrow."

"in our typical flying day the 427 [a twin] would not cut it."

My original questions about "where are the Bell 427s?" turned into a debate between Singles vs. Twins. Originally, there were a lot of good opinions from both sides of the spectrum, but lately its been mostly pro-single people. Much of the stuff they bring up makes complete sense, but some of them seem to miss the fact that a second engine can save you in some sticky situations.

I've only been in one helicopter that had an engine failure (abnormal readings from a recently replaced engine on a maintenance check flight), but am incredibly glad it was a twin engined helicopter (BK) as we were able to cruise on down to the local airport, fix it up, and get back going strong on 2 engines. The other option would have been to set down in the mountains just east of San Diego, had we been in a single, or at least a very hair raising race to the airport on a squirly looking engine.

By the way, I just looked it up... to all the people that said the 427 is not successful, they had 87 pre-orders before the first production ship was completed. I'm awaiting the current number of aircraft sold, but I'd imagine its higher than people think.

On to the topic again (hehe), I dont think the 119 is too popular because it is based off the "queen" of corporate helicopters. It's probably going to be hard to break that image of the A109 corporate ship when people look at the 119 for anything other than corporate. I'd imagine a "new single engined 8 place helicopter, with a new overall design proven on the twin engined stablemate, for ~ 2mil new" would turn plenty of heads.

Mike

[SASless]

Bell needs to quit using their belly buttons as peep holes....and throw the old Jetranger/Huey plans out the door and start from scratch and build a real helicopter. Despite the Bell handicap, maybe the AB-139 might prove to be a fresh breath of air.

If you ever sat a BO-105 next to a Jetranger and compared the difference in engineering.....you would understand my disappointment in the Jetranger series. Small insignificant things like seats, hydraulic systems, rotor blades, shafting, gearboxes, transmission mounts.....strength of structure.....in every case the Bell product is inferior.

Need I get too involved in suggesting the Bell 204/205/212/412/214 series has had a good run but it is time to move on to a new design. The 50's technology worked fine for almost fifty years but really....isn't it time for a new set of blueprints....things like decent pilot seats with a tilt feature....pilot doors that are worth a darn....transmissions that stay put when the aircraft crashes....remember the UH-60 rolling down Mt. Hood...would you like to have been in a Bell when that happened?
Wouldn't it be nice to see instrument panels centered in front of the pilot....air conditioning and heating systems that work....stabilization systems as standard.....true Cat A performance....tail rotors that will stay on the aircraft....tail booms that don't crack....a real four/five/six rotor system instead of the use of multiple two rotor systems. Heck, just to have a door latching system that will actually hold the door open ....jettisonable doors that actually work....windows that are big enough to be of some value. The list goes on....independent engines....enough of the combining gear box concept....love the old PT-6 but not the common gear box. I will take my BK or BO over the Bell line....at least I know the thing will stay together.

[flyer43]

It's not surprising that the old twin vs single contest has reared its head again. However, I am more concerned with the heavier commercial market rather than the civil market, so maybe my views are rather tainted.

Seems that everything boils down to cost in the end, but it is amazing how quickly a client can change his/her mind when you dump them rather unceremoniously in the back of nowhere when the only means of support fails.
As for twins being less reliable, this can of course depend on how they are being operated. There have been many occasions when a twin, particularly a light twin, has been loaded such that it can't maintain cruise at any height with one engine inop. All you have here is the equivalent of a single engine helicopter with "stretch glide" facility but with twice the probability of an engine failure.

Having said that, with the improved reliability of engines these days there is much to be said about singles, provided they are operated over areas from where rescue is feesible in the event of an engine failure.

[widgeon]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/general/ccarcs/exports/ex1101e.htm

This is the last month I can find a new 427 beeing exported from Canada serno 30 , ( 31 was exported as used in mar 2002) 30 aircraft sold over 2 years for an EH101 maybe be called a success but for a 3 Mill light twin it is a little dissapointing.

[GLSNightPilot]

I don't think the thread in r.a.r. indicated everybody hates twins, just owners. I would certainly have preferred to fly a twin when I was flying light ships, but the fact is that at least in the US the vast majority of light helicopters are single-engine, & cost drives that. Cost to acquire, & cost to fly and maintain. The owner isn't flying in it, & most of the customers aren't either, they're just SLF, or as we refer to them, breathing cargo or 'critters'.

[Randy_g]

Give me a Bell 205 anyday. No one has made an a/c that competes with it. Sure there are a/c that can out lift it on the hook, but can you put the same load internally ?? I think not. I would like to see a newer generation engine in it though, say a GE T700. Fuel burn that is over 30% less, engine weighs less, more power. The 205 is a great a/c that is proven, and fairly easily maintained in the field. Besides I get paid by the hour, not the mile so I don't mind going a little more sedately. :D Besides it still has the best sounding rotor system in the world !!! You just can't beat that sound !!! :D

TwinHueyMan I know from my perspective, I sure wouldn't want another "new" (read old) Allison. Ask anyone in western Canada about how the 250-C-47 is stacking up against it's competitors. It's got power, but it is not seeing the lifespan that it should have (so higher operating costs). The 250 design is almost 40 years old now, and there are many newer, and proven engines that are better. The PWC 200 series is about the same physical size, yet more powerful, and fuel burn is less (per hp that is).

Cheers

http://randyspics.tripod.ca/gifs/naughty.gif Randy_G

http://randyspics.tripod.ca/gifs/bear_eating_picnic_md_clr.gif

[Yoho]

Nice to see your bear on this forum too! :D

[chopperdr]

with regards to randy_g, the aircraft you describe is essentially the new bell 210, if this becomes a go program.

[Avnx EO]

I see this thread (B-417) has taken a turn - but lets get back to a few things.

First, being somewhat involved, I think it's safe to say that Bell is NOT considering a single engine version of the 427. And it doesn't escape me that this thread was started by a Eurocopterian who was probably fishing ;).

TwinHueyMan was correct that the 427 airframe may have the "Bell look,” but airframe wise, it is a completely different beast than the 206 or 407. For one, the 427 is a completely composite airframe, and I could go on forever from there – but I won’t.

The failing of the 427 is not in the power - it's got oodles of that, and the transmission is so over-designed, you could almost throw away the oil and fly all day. Its problem is that all that power is being beaten in to a rotor system that was really designed to lift an OH-58. The tweaks, tabs, and other such things they did to get more lift out of the blades did not pan out as expected – and Bell continues to work those issues. Don’t get me wrong... in the correct environment, that thing flies like the sports car of helicopters. But I don’t think Bell would entertain any investment in power changes until it - one way or another - gets more out of the rotor on that beast.

As for SASless and his Bell tirade, I think that one deserves a new thread. Do I dare accuse him of going from Brit Bashing to Bell Bashing and risk an equivalently eloquent put down? But let me at least say this..

If you are going to compare a JetRangers to BO105s and BK-117s, then include what you (or your boss) paid for them. It’s like comparing a BMW to a Ford Sedan. I’ll take a 206 or 407 over an R22 or R44 as well – which is about the same sort of comparison - but I don’t beat on Robi for the product they put out for the price.

I don’t understand your issue with the C-box. Yes it’s used in the 212/412, but then the 230, 430, and 427 do not. So it’s not like it’s endemic of Bell designs (as you seem to suggest.) Using a C-Box may not be engineering purity, but it certainly isn’t restrictive in those models. You hit the XMSN limits way before the C-box, and I’m not aware of short-shaft failure rates being a significant source of autorotations. So I don’t really understand your beef.

As far as the rest of your list, it seems to include every beef ever that has ever occurred in any Bell design in history. In the specific models you list, the 412-EP is the only one still in new manufacture. (I assume you are not holding Bell accountable for the 50-year-old technology it sold forty, or even thirty years ago, so let's stick to the EP). By the way, stabilization IS standard on the 412-EP. And the 412-EP has no endemic tail rotor departures, tail boom cracks, etc. in the current design that I’m aware of. By the way, the air conditioning on those models isn't Bell’s – it’s a third party STC. And yes, the instrument panel position and the door latch designs are vestiges of the original Huey airframe.... Sorry.... But then again, not all Bells are that way either.

As far as Cat-A performance goes, you should see the A-SAR 412-EP we have here with FADEC PT6-T9s, and a 4-screen, full glass cockpit. The OEI performance would knock your socks off. I wish we could convince the powers-that-be that there is the market to bring that through FAA certification. ... Maybe you could help us convince them?

As far as the 412 goes, the old beast is hard to beat. She ain’t pretty, She ain’t the fastest, and she doesn’t have the best legs, but it just seems to hit "just the spot.” Big enough to do the job, but small enough to set down in a "Miami intersection". In spite of all the people who have predicted that the 412 will stop selling as soon as model-X hits the market, (Including Bell when it introduced the AB-139 as part of the "Bell Agusta Aircraft Company") people just keep wanting 412s and buying them. It’s like what C-130s are to cargo planes in that regard.

So...Should Bell stop making 412s in favor of the AB-139? (It's got 5 blades, an articulated rotor, and everything you ask for for a hell of a lot less than the cost difference between a BK-117 and a 206.) Should Bell stop making JetRangers and 407s in favor if an EC-120 knock off? (As chopperdr suggests), or would that be about as smart as when VW stopped production of the Beetle in favor of the Golf?

Or maybe keep the best of the old (with some improvement), add some new, and dump the rest.

I'd give you my opinion, but then again - I'm biased.
;) ;)

[widgeon]

OMG I have been outed :<{).

[CTD]

You were outed a LONG time ago, which is precisely why I didn't take any of your bait:)

[widgeon]

My profile has always been clear , Jean Bigay sends me a bonus cheque every time I mention a Eurocopter Product :p

[chopperdr]

with regards to avnx eo, i agree with most of your opinions, however would still suggest to bell that a bell product with a similar layout to the ec-120 with PW power would be fine seller, if you look at the sales of 120's vs 206b's over the last 3 years the numbers will tell the story. if EC puts an extra 100 shp useable into the 120, and, if robinson does go forward with their turbine powered a/c, two big ifs, but things are stirring in both camps, then bell can say goodbye to a market that was there's to lose.

[Randy_g]

chopperdr the 210 is the Huey II, and has basically the T53-17 in it. I know that they call it a -703, but that is just a newer version of the 30 year old -17. Bell is considering the PWC PT6-67D for the 210, and that would be an improvement, but alas no GE engine. :( The GE was the best of the bunch, but for some reason GE doesn't want anything to do with the old 205's.

Cheers

http://randyspics.tripod.ca/gifs/naughty.gif Randy_G

http://randyspics.tripod.ca/gifs/bear_eating_picnic_md_clr.gif

[Avnx EO]

Don’t get me wrong. I am not excusing Bell for resting on its laurels when it comes to its commercial product line. I just don’t think that translates into Bell Engineering being inherently flawed, and that the whole product line should be trashed.

From what I’ve seen, Bell has failed to continuously improve upon and evolve its existing products. The 412 is in its position today only because of its legacy of continuously improving on a good product. But the basic 412 received certification in ’81, and the last improvement, the EP, came out in ’91. She’s definitely due for an update – but not a replacement in my opinion.

My opinion - for what its worth - in other areas: The 407 a great ship that deserves a new (not tweeked) design from the tail disconnect back, and some of the rotor work done for the 427 could be applied to get even more out of the rotor on the 407. The 430 needs improved avionics and systems, and they should go back and unleash the extra speed that’s there, but couldn’t afford to get certified in the initial design. The little 206B model either needs to come up in technology or down in price if it wants to stay alive. The poor little 427, however, is a tough call. Bell needs a light twin in its line up, but as someone pointed out, it’s a very limited market. Would Bell do better working from the 427? Or would it be better off with a lower cost version of the 430 (something more akin to a 222/230 airframe with a 4 blade system)? Or maybe Bell needs to start from scratch there again? But I tell ya, after the Bell 400, the TwinRanger, and now the 427, Bell doesn’t exactly have a stellar history for putting the puck-in-the-net when it comes to the light twin department.

I still think it’s sad that the great minds in the FTC thought it necessary to prevent Bell from picking up MD’s commercial line (and thereby moving its ownership to Europe – yeah, that was good for the country!) I think the mix of the two company’s technologies would have done the products well – as the mix of MBB and Aerospatiale technology has done Eurocopter well. I’d hate to see the world end up with just Eurocopter, plus a bunch of small niche helicopter companies.
:(

[chopperdr]

the whole ftc / bell / md fiasco is one of the worst things that happened in the business, we can only guess what the 902 and 500 series would have done with bell standing behind the products, needless to say the eurocopter sales figures would be somewhat less than they are.

[ppheli]

AvnxEO - I thought Bell had already announced no more development of the 412?

[Avnx EO]

As far as I'm aware, the 412 ASAR is being actively "peddled" but to governments, and without civil certification. A bunch of them are already delivered and in service. The ASAR 412-EP was developed with FAA certification in mind, and up until a year-and-a-half ago, there were plans to get the glass cockpit and FADEC engines part of it ceritifed in the basic aircraft. That effort was stopped because the "crystal ball gazers" predicted this big drop off in commercial 412-EP sales. They figured it wasn't worth the investment.

If 412-EP sales are drying up, you sure couldn't tell. Whether that will help the Bell powers to reopen the issue?... maybe?... I sure wish.

You gonna sue them if they go back on their announcement??

[HeliEng]

I see that Bell have announced the launch of the new 417.

Has anyone got a photos they could post here for interest???

Here's a link to the press release:

http://investor.textron.com/newsroom/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=188782

[malabo]

I didn't look at the demo ship at the HAI too close, but it looked like a 407 to me. I'd be curious if the type certificate is different.

They swapped the Allison -47 engine for the Honeywell HTS900 (off the top of my head it think it is the same family as the Lycoming LTS-101 that Bell used in their older twins). Modern avionics - along with everyone else in the industry - the Chelton system is available on the 407 now so not much new there.

They still need a light/medium with a flat floor to compete with Eurocopter, something like the 429 except with one big stove instead of two.

malabo

[Bravo73]

Has anyone got a photos they could post here for interest???

HeliEng,

Here's one that I googled for and posted on the HeliExpo thread:

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/Helicopters_img/200602/200602bell_417.jpg


:ok:
B73

[crop duster]

All it needs now is a belly tank and a spray boom.:)
barryb

[B Sousa]

The one at HAI was pretty bare bones although set up for Law Enforcement. They usually have budgets that are designed to make the Aircraft Max Gross with toys.
If the Hot and High issues are seriously addressed with the 417 its going to be a sweet aircraft.

Drop Cruster.....Spray Rig?? its too pretty .........Ha Ha

[Heli-kiwi]

Deepen the cabin, flatten the floor and get rid of the pillar and you would have the smoothest most usable helicopter on the market...................

[PANews]

Ah, if only if it were that easy Kiwi!

Even the 429 lives on compromise for today with a promise of the 'real' or intended version [with a notar like tail] in a few years and that was a relatively clean piece of paper.

[Revolutionary]

That photo proves one thing: Bell is great at making mock-ups! Contrast that with Eurocopter. They never tell you what's in the works and all of a sudden, poof! there's a brand new design, fully certificated and ready for purchase. Don't get me wrong, I love Bell but I wish they would stop making mockups, warmed-over hueys and questionable flights of fancy like the 609, and get on with the business of designing, certifying and selling modern helicopters.

[No_7DAD]

The 417 is an amendment to the 407 TC.

[PHMOVE]

Hi!
Look at hovercontrol.com and then message forum.There is a Tread about the 417 with quite a lot of Pictures including the glass cockpit...Pictures are in very good quality...so go get them...it is a walkaround the 417 from every angle...
Philip

[Phoinix]

I hope nobody minds for copying those pics. If admin finds this unappropriate, please delete the pics but keep the link, so others can have a look. Well, here they are:

http://64.34.169.161/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=1;t=7143

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5163.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5164.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5165.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5166.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5167.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5169.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5173.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5174.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5175.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5176.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5177.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5178.jpg

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Special_Files/DSCF5179.jpg

Big thanks to Scott i guess!

I love that bell jetranger design :}

[B Sousa]

Phoinix, Good set of photos. leave little to question on the machine. Photos look as they were taken at the factory at Alliance in Ft Worth.

I love that bell jetranger design

Lots of folks are always hoping for a change, but the motto should be "If it works, dont fix it." If folks didnt like the design the 206 and 407 series wouldnt be in such demand. Theres a waiting list for airframes today and Bell is smiling.........:ok: :ok:

[tottigol]

Deepen the cabin, flatten the floor and get rid of the pillar and you would have the smoothest most usable helicopter on the market...................
There are a couple already, they are called EC-130B4 and A-119 Koala:rolleyes:

[widgeon]

there was a good joke going round when they had the performance limits due to the TR eating the Tail Boom , part of the AD kit was a label to blank out the 0 in the model name .

[Ian Corrigible]

Two first flights in two months.

Bell 417 achieves first flight
Bell (http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/companyInfo/pressReleases/PR_060717-1329_417-1stFlight.cfm) 7/17

Bell Helicopter today announced that the Bell 417 completed its first flight Thursday, June 1, 2006. The aircraft took off from Bell XworX in Arlington, Texas and flew in a traffic pattern at 70 knots – about 80 mph – for a little more than half an hour at about 1,000 feet. The pilot’s comments were that the aircraft handled great. Basically, it was a flawless first flight. The aircraft and engine performed as expected.

Commenting on the flight Bell Chief Executive Officer, Mike Redenbaugh, said “This was another great day for Bell. This accomplishment reflects the Bell and Textron commitment to bringing new products to our valued customers in both commercial and military applications. The Bell 417 brings tremendous new capability to the market place. It is one more step in keeping our promise of providing premier products to our customers.”

The new Bell 417 is designed to provide improved useful load, high temperature and high altitude Out-of-Ground Effect (OGE) performance, lower cost of operation than simper aircraft in the light single class as well as modernized cockpit equipment.

The Federal Aviation Administration and Transport Canada are expected to certify the new Bell 417 in 2008 with European Aviation Safety Agency validation expected in late 2008.

The 417 features new main and tail rotors to provide additional performance and directional control margin.

The Bell 417 has received tremendous acceptance in the market place since its introduction at the Helicopter Association International convention (Heli-Expo) in February.


ARH-70A first flight
Bell (http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/companyInfo/pressReleases/index.cfm) 7/20

Bell Helicopter today announced that the Bell ARH-70A completed its first two flights Thursday, July 20, 2006. The aircraft took off from Bell XworX in Arlington, Texas and flew multiple handling maneuvers, flew in a hover for both in and out of ground effect, and flew in a traffic pattern reaching 80 knots, 500 ft. altitude, with banks up to 30 degrees for a little more than 1.5 hours of flight. The flights delineate the ARH program as one of the fastest 'contract to flight' programs ever completed and set a new standard for such acquisitions.

Commenting on the flights Bell Chief Executive Officer, Mike Redenbaugh, said "This is an outstanding day for Bell and our customer, the U.S. Army. The ARH-70A is needed for the war on terror that is being fought by our military. This flight begins a new phase in the development of the aircraft and brings it closer to beginning the mission it was designed to execute."

The first flight also demonstrated the unique ARH teaming relationship between Bell and the U.S. Army with both a Bell and Army pilot conducting the operations. Bell test pilot Jim McCollough and Army pilot CW5 Alan Davis performed pilot and co-pilot operations, proving that the Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) platform approach can be successfully applied to military applications.

The ARH-70A is a complete weapons system designed to meet aerial reconnaissance capabilities to operate with the current and future force. Equipped with lethal weapons capability, net-centric connectivity and is equipped for day and night operations. Taken together the equipped aircraft enables the air-ground maneuver commander to "see-understand-act first."

"Today's first flight marks a major milestone for the ARH-70A as the program transitions into the flight test phase," stated Bell's ARH-70A program manager Bill Leonard. "Our Team's focus continues to be towards the completion of the build and functional test of the remaining three test aircraft, clearing the path towards a successful Limited Users Test (LUT), and finishing the production design." The program schedule has LUT beginning late 2006 to early 2007, in order to complete the production award criteria required to accomplish the first unit equipped in fourth quarter FY 2008 and Full-Rate production in FY 2009.

I/C

[widgeon]

Are these essentially the same aircraft with a different paint scheme ?.

[Ian Corrigible]

Essentially, yes. The ARH gets the mission equipment package (nose-mounted target acquisition suite, embedded GPS/INS, radar altimeter, etc.), hardpoints, self-protection suite, suppressor and - in production form - the more powerful version of the new Honeywell engine. Bell has so far been coy in revealing whether or not the civil 417 will also get the uprated engine.

I/C

[Bravo73]

Bell has so far been coy in revealing whether or not the civil 417 will also get the uprated engine.
I/C

Wasn't that the whole point of the 417? To be a more powerful version of the 407 to compete against the AS350B3?

Or are we talking about an 'uprated, uprated engine', if you get my drift?

[belly tank]

Widgeon your quote
dont get me wrong here, im a fan of both bell and EC however predominatly fly bell products, but didnt Aerospatiale come EC have a similair problem when they first bought out the A-STAR model.:ugh: there were tail boom strikes in the early days of the 350 and didnt they lengthen the TR drive shaft, same as what they did on the 407 right!;)

[Ian Corrigible]

Wasn't that the whole point of the 417? To be a more powerful version of the 407 to compete against the AS350B3? Or are we talking about an 'uprated, uprated engine', if you get my drift?
Yes, we're talking uprated uprated. The 417 will already have 275 more horses than the 407, but Honeywell is already developing a new compressor for the HTS900 (allegedly due to weight/drag problems on the ARH-70A), which will give another 45-65 shp.

I/C

[SawThe Light]

BT

IIRC, the longer TGB output shaft on the Astars were introduced to correct vibrations on the vertical stabilisers caused by the T/R being a tad too close to the fins. The T/R tips contacting the tail boom happened when a pitch link failed. Beefed-up pitch links fixed that problem and it seems that the fixes were effective.

[belly tank]

Saw the light,

Thankyou for your explanation....was not aware of the pitch links. appreciate your input:ok:

[Bravo73]

Thanks, I/C. :ok:

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Originally, with the short tail rotor output shaft, the Astar TGB forward housing was lifed too.

As for the "my helicopters better than yours" debate, Eurocopter have done almost as many add-ons to their designs as Bell. SA-360 becomes EC155, B0-105 to a EC145, SA315-EC130.

The most advanced helicopter flying today is the MH-53J Pave Low.Its not its age thats important, its what it can do and that is all about avionics...

[Lama Bear]

Boom Boom said... "SA315-EC130" ???

I find this a real stretch. There are no shared parts in these two models. They do not share the same TC. The 407 is, however, piggybacked onto the 206A TC and shares parts with the earlier models. I suspect the 417 will be also. Check out TC H2SW.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/38c1200368810cb486256f5c007837b4/$FILE/H2sw.pdf

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Yeah ok i agree your right, its not blatant like 206L to 407 but its the same configuration.
Of all the possible combinations they could have come up with for the As350 it has Single fuel cell surrounded by a box beam fuselage, cantilever cockpit, transmission lift transferred by 4 struts, 3 blades (no Sud aviation-eurocopter product has ever had 2 blades).
Its the same basic configuration as the Sa315-318.

The point is Eurocopter didnt start with a clean sheet of paper. They used what worked on their other designs (or MBBs), you be crazy to re-invent the wheel everytime you drew up another helicopter.
Their one big difference was they developed the Fenestron.
Im not pro Bell or anti whoever just pointing out the lineage, the alouette is the grandfather of the Astar.

(...and cue helicopter-spotter corrections)