Bell 540

[widgeon]

Saw a rumour on another site that this will debut at HAI , anyone got any specs ?

[SASless]

Knowing Nick Lappos, being an old Cobra Pilot (operative word being "old") he will have topped a Jet Ranger with a Bell 540 rotor system and we'll have this years new roll out. Wait a minute.....did they not already do that and called it a 222?

[docstone]

Me thinks MAPL architecture 412 replacement if true

[WhirlwindIII]

The 222A flew like the AH1G without the tractor tail rotor - always watching power, tail rotor authority, and generally no gas to go anywhere (2+10 SL tops).

[SASless]

Whirlwind....and SLOW.....just like the Cobra. The only way the Cobra could keep up with a Chinook was while being carried as a sling load!

[WhirlwindIII]

Yes, BH222A usually @125-130 knots IAS with a modest load at ISA SL and MT 80%.

What little Cobra flying I did I enjoyed, once it got through translational, but preferred the UH1C Charlie model due to total four crewmembers i.e. more eyes, and much better lateral coverage in a break or while low-bird on VR.

Take a strong UH1H up to short of blade stall and it'll slowly walk away from an armed AH1G; much to the surprise of all us one day in 1971 in a far off place when a bit short on fuel.

[ottomaddick]

Why would anyone flying a Cobra be in a rush to get out of the airconditioned cockpit? Besides we were paid by the hour.

[Avnx EO]

No such thing as a Bell 540. And as far as the rotor system goes, I thought it was called the "680 rotor system."

I can't even see how a 540 fits in the Bell naming convention. The MAPL series were all 3s (351, 381, 382) for third generation. But that was an engineering model referencing. The only thing to come out of MAPL has been the 429 which is the MAPL 382 airframe, MAPL rotor blades, with 427 powerplant and newly designed drive system, hub, and tail rotor.

Mind you the Bell model-naming convention defies convention. About the only consistent thing has been that the first digit correspond to the number of blades. At times there has been reference to pax (i.e. the 609 has 6 blades and carries 9 people, a 412 has 4 blades carries about 12 pax. ) Sometimes the number includ the crew, sometines it doesn't Sometimes Bell thinks its Boeing and starts to sequence just the center digit (i.e. 407, 427, 417). Sometimes it has added digits in normal counting fashion, but that was back in the 60s and 70s. i.e. 204,205 to 206, 209 was the Cobra, then 212, 214, etc. I think there were models in between the gaps - being variants that were prototypes or didn't make it. But then the 206 became the 406 for 4 blades (OH-58) then it evolved to become the 407. But when the 407 was evolved into a twin, and a "2" was inserted in the middle to make it a 427. Actually, I think the "222" evolved in sequence, but then it somehow progressed to the "230" as a single step (why add 8??) and then became a 430 when it went to 4-blades.

The initial improvements to the 427 were supposed to be called the 428. But that number is considered bad luck in some cultures, so it was initally dubbed the 427s3i (That's how it was displayed at HAI 2004. Ask Sandy Kinkade the story behind that some time.:=) In 2005, when it took on the MAPL airframe, it became the 429.

So by logic, a 540 would be five-bladed and carry 40 people, or have 4 engines and carry 0 people, or be the 40th design in a 5-bladed family of designs.... :}

[Variable Load]

Maybe it was really a Bell 450?

Photo Bell Helicopter Bell 450 C-BCHD (http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=354498)

Definitely 4 blades, not sure about the seating capacity for 50 pax :eek:

[SASless]

.....and a Bell 47 tail rotor guard attached!:ugh:

[Fark'n'ell]

Avnx EO

Your logic as to the numbering of Bell helicopters astounds me. Why was the Bell 47 so named?:confused:

[widgeon]

Not to mention the bell 48 and bell 61
Bell HSL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_61)

If you think a single teetering rotor is scary imagine two of them :)
And the 540 was probably someones idea of a joke sorry for posting

[WhirlwindIII]

Bell 540 refers to the rotor system, not a model of helicopter. The -10 US Army Pilot Operator manual, whatever it was called, can't remember, used "540 rotor system" to denote the big barn doors hung as rotor blades on the UH1C and AH1G.

As to getting out of the air conditioned cockpit of an AH1G in preference to the unairconditioned UH1C, comfort was not a concern for me in RVN, survival was. The Cobra was not as survivable as the UH1C when various scenarios cropped up.

[Tango and Cash]

Bell numbering convention? There is no Bell numbering convention! Engineering design numbering + marketing spin = scrambled eggs!

And who nicknamed the 429 the "Global Ranger"?

[Darkhorse30]

The 540 rotor system was also installed on the UH-1M and some of the UH-1E's, as well as the AH-1Q, R, and most S's. It was a 44 ft. diameter rotor with a 27 inch chord on the "door hinge" rotor head, and this system was more optimal for higher speed flight. I am not surprised that the Chinook could out run the AH-1G, considering that the Cobra probably had a load of 2.75 inch rockets, 4000 rounds of 7.62 mm, 300 rounds of 40mm grenades and possibly 1000 rds. of 20mm. I flew them in RVN as well as in training and testing in the states and we were always near max.GW. The Vne on the AH-1G was 190KIAS which was only achievable in a dive. Without bullets, rockets, etc.I suspect it could keep up with an unloaded Chinook.

[WhirlwindIII]

Darkhorse30

Darkhorse30 - sounds like a zone D callsign.

Right, the UH1M INFANT had the 540, as well as a forward CofG problem. The preproduction AH1 had a Vne of 220 and sans pods, armament, ammo, etc. that and the production AH1G could outrun the Chinook with ease, providing the skid cross tube farings were installed (Vne restricted without all four - I seem to remember).

WIII

[Darkhorse30]

WIII
I saw a UH-1M with the INFANT system in late 69. I may be wrong but I think that all of the old C's were converted to M's later, and I think that the big difference was the replacement of the engine with the T53-L-13. The Army was using a bunch of old UH-1M's at White Sands Missile Range as target drones. A look at the FAA Type Certificate Data Base does not show any UH-1C's or M's. I still have my old AH-1G dash ten, as well as the ones for the AH-1S (and F's). I would rather be in a Cobra in a fight than a C or M because we carried more bang and were skinny, faster and hard to hit. Just don't do your breaks over the target.
Are you referring to War Zone D? I was stationed at Phu Loi (near War Zone D), then Soc Trang, and Can Tho.

[SASless]

I am a Charter member of WOPA, Phu Loi Branch, Geronimo Chapter!:ok:

As I have stated in the past....the only way a Cobra can keep up with a Chinook is while riding on a sling underneath the Hook!:=

[pants on fire...]

I have to confess to being the originator of the Bell 540 rumour. It was never posted on here, but made its way here from Just Helicopters! :eek:

Nothing like a good rumour when nothing exciting is happening.:ok:

[More Payload]

"And who nicknamed the 429 the "Global Ranger"?"

Mike "Red" Redenbaugh when he was CEO of Bell.

[WhirlwindIII]

Don't remember a Chinook doing 190 knots, but, what's Vne amongst friends anyway.

Yes, War Zone D. 334th at Phu Loi I remember. Geronimos of course. Worked in team covering INFANT as the low bird finding stuff six months late '70 - '71 FOB. Nothing like a little night roam-about to lose some weight - little that I had.

The UH1Ms did have the -13 engine and of course the thread subject 540 rotor system. I preferred the four crewmembers, 8 eyes, bungee 60s, and minis and rockets of the UH1C - just felt more secure I guess. Nicer to have four guys on the ground when being forced down too. Breaking over the target was a really big no-no for very obvious reasons. We never did anything the same, ever. Always different tempo, direction, height, angle, lights, etc. Our theory was it kept the little people with big guns on the ground guessing and hesitating. Didn't always work though.

Favorite A/C = XV15 - definitely not a 540 rotor system though. In that interest it would be curious to see a 412/212 fitted with a short 214ST type rotor - might do 150IAS? Getting experimental here.

[Winnie]

and reference to the 222/230/430, think THAT might have something to do with the Allisopn (RR) 250 C30 Engines fitted, just like the MD530.

Cheers
W.

[Darkhorse30]

We left Phu Loi in late March or early April 1970 for Soc Trang. It seems to me that 334th moved into our vacated hootches. Been a long time, so my memory might be wrong.
I haven't seen a 214 or an ST around here in some time. We are located across the field from Bell's X-worX and see the 609 a couple of times a week. Looks pretty cool but I understand that they are turning most of the work over to Agusta.
Used to see the XV-15 but it's now in the museum at Dulles Airport in DC.
Next week I get to fly a UH-1H to Oklahoma. Oh Joy!

[WhirlwindIII]

Yes, 334th did move in to your hootches. Flew XV15 with Roy Hopkins on evaluation assignment; think you must have been across the runway. Presently interested in the coaxial advancements. Mil equipment interests are high. Maybe a 540 on an old Mil4? Can't imagine the blade slape of a teetering rotor system with a 68' diameter! Ridiculous to sublime; vice-versa, or something like that.

[SASless]

Ring a bell Whirlwind?

http://users.erols.com/moonstar/pic56.jpg

[Avnx EO]

The 2 digit model numbering was for the original piston stuff. The three digit and the associated model sequencing came with the turbine helicopters. That's why someone had the idea of starting the MAPL line with "3" as the "third generation" (first being the 47 et al, second being the 204, 206 and the derrivatives, ignore 222 and derrivatives as being a generation on its own, and that makes MAPL third.)

Bill Stromberg was the father of the "Global Ranger" name. Mike Redenbaugh wanted a real name for the 429 and not just a number. You had "Jet Ranger" and "Long Ranger" as Bell's named civil models, "Twin Ranger" had already been used by an STC. So given the international participation in the pogram, Bill suggested "Global Ranger."

I don't think that name has really stuck though...

[Darkhorse30]

I spent a lot of time in Russian helicopters, about 1200 hrs, including the KA-32, and the Mil 14, as well as the Mil-2, 8, 24, 35P. I met Roy Hopkins several years ago, but never got to fly the XV-15.

[Brilliant Stuff]

What is the current state of the Bell Twinrangers?

I was once told out of the 5(?) Bell built only 2 got sold. Where are they now?

[Avnx EO]

Ahhh.... I thought the Twin Ranger was a Soloy Conversion STC. I know at one time there was a deal where Bell wanted to productionize the STC rather than engineer its own light Twin, but they had some "issues" with the STC and it never went through. I don't think "Bell" ever built any Twin Rangers themselves.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Thanks for putting me right.

[heli1]

Bell build TwinRangers ?...oh yes they did ! ( Not many though...13 according to a recent article in Helidata News ).

[Snapsimo]

I remember seeing the XV-15 land at Fort Rucker when I was a kid. My father was on an Exchange posting from Australia. He grabbed me from home and said, you need to have a look at this thing mate, its going to be the future.

Watched it fly over head at a great rate of knots and then come to a hover and land on one of the ovals. The pilots let us look all over it. One of the most exciteing experiences I've had.

Now that I fly I wonder when it (Bell609) is going to be produced if at all. Gone a bit quiet. Love to have it for SAR.

[WhirlwindIII]

Snapsimo

Tiltrotor is very complicated, to me anyway. I think BA609 will be produced but in limited quantities due to its high cost. Speed and range advancements in conventional helis as well as coax developments are encroaching on its niche.

To me tiltrotor transports not a lot, somewhat quickly, for a pile of cash. A helicopter of comparable purchase price can transport more payload in not much less time.

I see the tiltrotor as filling a unique gap in military ops, SAR as well, but in civil ops I just don't get the cost justification. Coax helicopters may just fill the speed/range, plus more payload?, that the tiltrotor rests its chin on.

To an experienced helicopter pilot, and novice tiltrotor pilot, the XV15 was easy to fly and had definite advantages over conventional helicopters!

WIII