View Full Version : 407 vs. AS350B2/3 in Low Enforcement
407 vs. AS350B2/3
I need to choose between the 2 - What would YOU recommend for a Law Enforcement job....
What are the Pro's and Con's of both types?
Why did the LA Police switch their Bell Product to the Eurocopter one?
Thx
;)
Striclty between machines without the application you mention, I prefer the 407, though I've only flown the Twinstar, not the B2. There can't be many helicopters restricted to 2000 fpm with full fuel and passengers (that's because the auto characteristics are a bit dodgy from that attitude, especially in quiet mode). Plenty of power, lots of collective at the end of an auto, 140 kts, though it bumps a bit when it's wet and the FADEC could do with some more fail safe (speaking as a PC technician, I think one circuit board is a bit cheesy with no backup). Then again, the Astar is cheesy in many respects too, not least the little hydraulic belt, the wiring and the connectors.
It might be worth ringing Alpine in BC - they apparently find some issues at high altitudes, and a couple of other problems they haven't mentioned yet.
As for law enforcement, I wish we had them instead of the Scouts in N Ireland. I think I would probably take due note of the 407's engine off characteristics if you're going to be over strange places. the Astar comes down like a greased manhole cover.
Phil
HeliMark
17th Jun 2002, 02:14
eg0, your best source for that type of information is at www.alea.org . That is an airborne law enforcment web site. I can not comment on why LAPD made the switch, other then the 407 was new and had some real growing pains.
I do know that the LA Sheriff are switching to the AS350B2 starting this summer also. Some of the main reasons are the room inside compared to the 407, tail rotor authority, and no FADEC. We did everything we could think of that pertained to our job, and more, and the AS350 just beat the 407 in almost every respect. Bell needs to update the airframe, and I believe there is one on the drawing board.
What really impressed me was that Eurocopter was the only company that wanted to prove the capability of their helicopter by showing it at it's worse. They let us do full touchdown auto's at max gross, heck they led the charge on doing it. All the other company's did not want to do that.
B Sousa
17th Jun 2002, 04:29
Heres some speculation for you..........
LA probably changed for a few reasons.
(1) Money/Price
(2) Reliability
(3) Product Support
(4) All the things that Bell used to have.
Not a 407 type, but I understand in spite of all the ADs its quite a nice machine. Having flown Bell products for over 30 years and now flying A-Stars I can say why didnt I change sooner...
paco, FYI - the 2000fpm climb restriction on the 407 is there because of airspeed indication stability issues, and has nothing to do with autorotation capabilities. I don't know where that got started - I've heard it quite a bit - but it's not true.
Cheers
B.Loser
17th Jun 2002, 19:38
These are a couple of personal observations:
In my opinion a lot depends on your primary mission (aside from the LE generalization) and the operating environment. Both are excellent aircraft and I enjoy flying either.
The 350 has a big, unclutterd interior (I do hope that Bell will, someday, get rid of that silly broom closet).
The 350 has much better altitude performance. Important when you consider all of the "standard" LE equipment that's probably going to be bolted on. At 7,000 ft on a warm day with a moderate load, the 407 will temp out at around 71 to 75% tq. Again, with all the engines that are available...
Altitude performance notwithstanding, the 407 is better suited for vertical reference/ external loads - from either side.
The 407 seems to be less "maintenance intensive", but aside from deliberate misuse, both are hard to tear up. As paco stated, the 350 does have some "cheesy atributes" that will creep up on an operator at the most inopertune moment.
Bell still has the edge when it comes to support. I don't know about "overseas" support, but here in the U.S., and in my experience, it's unsurpassed.
Personally, I'd like to see how a 119 stacks up next to the two.
BTW, if you ever get the chance to go to Ft. Worth, ask the IP to demonstrate why the 2,000 FPM climb restriction. Quite impressive.
CTD - yeah, that makes sense, 'cos it's damped anyway. It's still an impressive demo, though.
I hear Alpine have gone completely 407 away from the Astars over in Canmore, though they don't do law enforcement.
cheers
phil
Galapagos
18th Jun 2002, 01:32
AS350 all the way, anytime.
Powerfull. Predictable. Manoeuvrable. Lots of tail rotor autority. Far better (to my taste) if you have to do a lot of hovering. Roomy interior with great visibility for everyone inside. (Especially important for police operations) Practical and versatile interior. Can fit a winch on it.
I have to say that the hyd belt looks a little bit cheap and the electrical system is "Mickey Mouse"... but it is a small price to pay for hours of great flying.
Bell needs to get rid of their old style airframe and start from scratch with an all new way of thinking if they want to get back in the game.
chopperdr
19th Jun 2002, 19:19
we manufacture law enforcement stc equipment for both airframes and have been actively involved in airframe completions for both types specifically for law enforcement customers. all the comments so far i would agree with. would add that the electrical system on the 350 is the weak link, however in north america the common solution is to install either the geneva aviation or van isle avionics center console, thereby moving away from the temperamental dsq switches and replacing them with toggle switch systems. also your equipment fit is as important as the airframe itself, meaning the selection of mount positions and sensor suite. what is your plan regarding equipment fit.
widgeon
19th Jun 2002, 22:15
Is that you Cal ??
chopperdr
19th Jun 2002, 23:28
yes it is i, and who may you be
407 Driver
20th Jun 2002, 01:50
Hey Paco, I'm at Alpine in BC...and Yes, we like 407's here. We now have 6 of the aircraft, and may add #7 very soon.
We finally sold the last of the 3 - 350B2's this year, to make this an all Bell fleet.
One of the many reasons that the 350's were flogged, was a 6 week AOG downtime waiting for parts a few summers ago, That kind of downtime is completely unacceptable.
Another reason for the change was performance, we found that the B2's could not ski with pilot plus 6, where the 407 does so with ease.
There has been a lot of good info in this thread, for and against each type. I agree that the 407 cockpit is a bit restrictive in size, the 350 would be much more comfortable to those pilots over 5'8". The B3 performance is better than a 407, but certanly NOT internally, given the B3's Internal Gross Weight of 4961, that superior performance cannot be fully utilized...Legally.
I have talked to the RCMP pilots re: performance, their B3 weighs in at arond 3200 EW, with all of the extras attached (NightSun, pop-uot floats, etc) so, with full fuel, that gives them an approx 700 lb useful load..if you depart Legally.
Galapagos, I'm surprised at your T/R remark. I've placed 2,000 lb sling loads at 8,000-9,000' with the 407, and it has lots of T/R authority. We've done sling rescues up to 13,000 with no issues, this aircraft loves altitude. Who ever mentioned that it temp limits is correct, but there seems to be more than enough TQ regardless.
Hey 407, where have you been?
The thing I always wondered about was why we are so hung up on this 'remo limit' thing. If the a/c is meeting its RFM performance, who cares what the limit is? All of the 350 series from the B on up are Ng limited, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone? At the B2, EC got smart and introduced the Diff Ng gauge, which helped, now they're even smarter with the FLI, which essentially just displays 'power'. Bell would be wise to follow suit.
407 Driver
20th Jun 2002, 13:53
Good point CTD, The 350 series ARE Ng limited, there's been many a day that I watched the Ng max'd out on B's, BA's or B2's, with a lot of (unuseable) TQ left, as I slowly rotated into a high ski landing...with the RH T/R pedal on the stop.
I don't miss those aircraft one little bit :D
Autorotate
24th Jun 2002, 10:15
Hey CTD
Hope you are still reading that downunder mag ;)
Marco
26th Jun 2002, 12:32
How you even consider law enforcement work in a single engine aircraft is beyond me. Once you've flown a twin for this type of work you won't want to go back. In the event of a single engine failure if you fancy doing an EOL in a car park, fine, but I much prefer doing my ten hour shift and going home. Not the local hospital.
widgeon
26th Jun 2002, 14:05
Seems to be a big difference between Europe and US , one wonders if the Regs in Europe were not quite as strict ( Jar OPs etc) if there would not be more singles operating in Police / Ems role . The single vs twin debate has been done to death on this forum and there is no clear winner as far as I can see.
Shawn Coyle
27th Jun 2002, 18:30
The reason for the 2000 fpm rate of climb limit in the 407 is quite interesting.
There is a requirement to demonstrate longitudinal static stability in the climb at minimum power speed at takeoff power at all weights and centers of gravity. The 407, at light weight, has so much vertical climb performance that the vertical airspeed component would make a very large angle on the pitot tube, making airspeed indications quite unreliable. This made it impossible to do the test in the light weight conditions required by the FARs. So, the solution was (instead of changing the pitot tube) to restrict the rate of climb. At this limited rate of climb it was possible to make the necessary demonstration of longitudinal static stability.
There is no real handling issue, merely a requirement that had to be met.
Hope this puts the story to bed.
( I was there when this happened)
Shawn