22 Bell Kiowa 206B-1 for sale Australia

[as350nut]

Australian Army has 22 Bell kiowa 206B-1 for auction, the aircraft do not come with registration nor do they have a certificate of airworthiness, so the question is; Is there any chance that any of them could receive registration as a Warbird.
Is it possible they could be used privately with the help of Australian Warbird Association which CASA recognizes, and is there any difference between one of these flying about than say any of the fixed wing military aircraft that are out there.

[gulliBell]

Anybody have a wild guess how much a flyable one with hours on it might sell for at auction? My guess, it would have to be less than AU$100K.

Warbirds rules can be found here (https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/warbirds):

[krypton_john]

Further info here:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/30650667/1976-bell-206b

and here

https://www.graysonline.com/promotions/military

There's also going to be Westland Scout, Pilatus FW trainers, truckloads of parts, engines etc. Fill your boots.

[as350nut]

Note the interest from NZ : Probably make a cheap machine for up in the hills chasing a red or thar, then again only 2 blades

[krypton_john]

Indeed. And NZ CAA possibly more permissive than most in allowing use of such ex mil machines too.

[krypton_john]

OH-58A in other words? From the pictures they have a couple of extras - electronic AI and HSI...

[rjtjrt]

Note the terms are bids attract a buyers premium, then pay GST on total.
So add 17.5% to any winning bid.

[wrench1]

OH-58A in other words?
Close. But a 58A is actually a 206A-1. If I recall the B-1s were strictly designated for Australian ops with some of the aircraft assembled there. If these are true B-1s then they aren't even eligible to get a AWC in the States like a 58A can. Hopefully nobody will decide to buy them and sell those parts on a global scale. Could end up causing issues like the ex-military parts did on the Aloutte/Lama.

[megan]

The Australian aircraft are 206B-1's. They differ from the OH-58A which has a smaller diameter rotor, different gear box and rotor spins at a different RPM. The first 12 Australian aircraft were built in the US, I and another Navy pilot took delivery of the first Australian built airframe, number 13. I'd assume our aircraft components are identical to one of the civil models (206B?), unlike the 58A. Loved the cockpit instrumentation, which a civil pilot could but drool over.

Arriving home on the delivery flight.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/576x337/z247_442db152cc5c17c76d5a326cc2997211c549467b.jpg

[as350nut]

I have done some checking looks like no manuals to work with and possibly incomplete records 206B-1 not type cert compatible with other 206's. The avionics would need expensive certification, some of the part numbers don't even exist in the civilian Bell world. The engine is straight C20, really only looking at Warbird status but with Index 3 so no flight over population or adventure flights. With the interest that's seems to be there at the moment probably looking at 200-300k buy price and need to spend 200k to get it going so doesn't make much sense when there are so many Jetrangers in normal cat available, esp at the age these are at.

[gulliBell]

...at the moment probably looking at 200-300k buy price...

Seriously? The Esso S76's sold for less than that, and they were mostly in good nick with a full set of meticulous documentation. I'd be surprised if those ex-Army Kiowas go for any more than $100K each.

[gulliBell]

...From the pictures they have a couple of extras - electronic AI and HSI...

When I last flew one they had none of that fancy stuff on the panel...no GPS (we used things called maps), no padded seats, and bog standard original issue instrumentation except for the NVG cockpit lighting which was just starting to be rolled out.

[as350nut]

GulliBell
Well lets wait and see, I am with you 100k max but I am repeating what I was told from someone with a lot more knowledge than me on the situation

[Duck Pilot]

Probably better off being in museums by the looks of it. I’m sure there would be more than 22 museums throughout Australia that would happily take them and not forgetting the RSL Clubs.

[SuperF]

uummmmm,

don't like to burst your bubble krypton john, but NZCAA absolutely hate anything restricted/experimental/warbirds category or ex-military. looking at the information available, i would think about $100k for the whole lot of those things. you can get a really cheap JR for $250k and then when you are sick of it sell it world wide, why would you spend more then a few grand on something that is a throw away item??

[krypton_john]

Yet there still are or have been Rotorways, Mosquitos, OH58s, AB206's with mixed parts, let alone Supermarine Spitfires, P51s, Gazelles etc flying in NZ

Agree totally on your point about the economics. They'd have to give these Aussie ones away.

[helihub]

Is there any chance that any of them could receive registration as a Warbird.

On the basis that there are nearly 20 Kiowas (mainly ex Canadian military) on the Australian VH- register, I would say "yes" there is a chance. Example below

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x705/35661_1119264867_d398cc14dc13a0ee44c85c7cb8a53f0d8730dcb1.jp g

[megan]

The aircraft above is a OH-58A so the registration data base says. There was no civil equivalent to the 58A, which has a different gear box, rotor spins at different RPM, rotor shorter diameter, so can't see why the 206B-1 couldn't be put on the civil register.

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/476711-oh-58a-206-differences.html

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/603768-bell-206-oh-58-differences.html

[wrench1]

so can't see why the 206B-1 couldn't be put on the civil register.
Most countries that operate under ICAO or are part of a Bi-Lateral Treaty use the aircraft's existing Type Certification from its "country of origin" as the basis for importation/registration/certification. The B-1 as no eligible serial numbers listed under the FAA Type Certificate (TCDS H2SW) which invalidates the TC for the B-1.

Unless the importing/certifying country has a specific process within their civil aviation regs to certify an aircraft without a valid TC, they would have to type certify the aircraft. In my limited experience within a dozen countries or so, I've never run across a CAA that permitted this on the civilian side. As an FYI: the 58 has eligible S/Ns under H2SW along with specific requirements to make the TC valid on 58s.

[megan]

Thanks wrench, learnt something new, and I see the 58 does have a civil equivalent.

There must means around the TCDS. It states, NOTE 15.Canadian Military Model COH-58A serial numbers 44001 and up are not eligible for Federal Aviation Administration type certification in any category.

NOTE 16.Military Model OH-58A surplused from other than an Armed Force of the United States is not eligible for Federal Aviation Administration type certification in any category. The aircraft in the photo above is serial number 44023, which in my mind, sort of puts in the same category as the B-1. How did they manage then to get 44023 on the register? The operator (commercial) is listed as the manufacturer?????

[wrench1]

How did they manage then to get 44023 on the register? The operator (commercial) is listed as the manufacturer?????
There are several methods: a new Type Certificate (TC), or an ATC (Amended TC), or a STC (Supplemental TC). Technically you are not going around the original TC. Think of the old Garlick UH-1Hs. They TC'd surplus UH-1s (with no TC) into restricted category aircraft. There were also about 4 or 5 other "new" TCs on Hueys. A more recent is here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/653cff89d51688f18625722e0061fab4/$FILE/R00005SERev2.pdf

Without more info or specific knowledge of things down under, I would guess 44023 falls under one of the above listed methods and the operator is the "owner" of the TC or whatever.

[as350nut]

Well of course CASA could not make a mistake, so when you look up the Australian register for VH AGK and the manufacturer of what appear to be a Bell oh58 is nominated as the same as the owner and operator, in the records, that indeed it must in fact be true.
I wonder if they have (the owner) manufactured any other Bell look a likes. Good old CASA. Not sure how Bell would view the aircraft records held and overseen by the Australian government not showing them as the manufacturer. I wonder what the lawyers would make of this if there were a court case for liability related to the manufacturer, and this aircraft, and a third party. After all this is the official record, and there is plenty of places that need signing when you apply for registration for an aircraft.

[megan]

It is certainly interesting as350 re 58's in Oz , there are a total of 17 X OH-58A's AMT have "manufactured", serials 008, 009, 010, 011 (Australian AMT commercial manufacturer serials, no Bell listed), 44018, 44019, 44023, 44027, 44028, 44031, 44034, 44049, 44051, 44053, 44054 (manufactured by another Australian commercial operator), 44064, 44070, 44073, plus an OH-58C 70-15092 manufactured by Bell.

[Cyclic Hotline]

The Certification of this helicopter conforms to CASA Type Certificate VR507. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/96391/download?token=ID2655YX
The confusion appears to originate from attempting to fit a product certified under the CASA process into the regulatory process of another (FAA).

[wrench1]

Not sure how Bell would view the aircraft records held and overseen by the Australian government not showing them as the manufacturer.
OH-58A's AMT have "manufactured", serials 008, 009, 010, 011 (Australian AMT commercial manufacturer serials, no Bell listed)
FYI: Type Certificate holders are not necessarily the actual producer (manufacturer) of an aircraft. The TC is merely a design approval whereas an aircraft gets produced under a Production Certificate (PC).

In the case of the 58 above it had a new design (TC VR507) approved by CASA here:
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/96391/download?token=ID2655YX (https://www.casa.gov.au/file/96391/download?token=ID2655YX)

There are 4 similar FAA TCs that provide approval to operate certain 58s in the Restricted Category. Some of these "new" TCs require the addition of a 2nd data plate with the current TC holders name like this (Page 7): http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/858445e3a2ca3a6086257a4e004b8488/$FILE/R00006DE_SN_List.pdf

As to how Bell views these changes, they have zero input or direct liability for those aircraft approved under a separate TC. Except that is in a US Tort trial where everybody is libel.

So in the case of the B-1s, if someone where enterprising enough, they could pursue the same tack as AMT did with the 58s and get their own CASA TC approval. Or, maybe AMT could amend their 58 TC to include the B-1s which I don't think would be much of a stretch.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Having previously certificated the former Canadian Air Force helicopters, I don't think they'll have any problem obtaining a new TC for these machines. The likelihood of adding them to TCDS VR507 is extremely unlikely, as all references and limitations are directly applicable to the CH-136 Kiowa configuration, publications, instructions and limitations. A new TC will have all the applicable references to the Australian Army configuration and manuals which will be specifically required to form the basis of certification. They are obviously already capable of producing all the updated certification documentation for a Restricted TC from their previous TCDS for the OH-58A.

[wrench1]

I don't think they'll have any problem obtaining a new TC for these machines.
Curious. Is there that big a demand in Australia for restricted single turbine aircraft for a company/individual to go through the TC process/cost on these B-1s?

[as350nut]

Thank you Wrench1 for the explanation

[Eddie Dean]

There will be an issue sourcing MR blades.
The MRGB outputs at 360 RPM instead of 390 for the civil version.
Tail boom is slightly longer.
Don't know if Tompkin's OH 58s have these differences.
The engines are 250C20 and we're maintained in civil workshops.
FWIW

[Cyclic Hotline]

Curious. Is there that big a demand in Australia for restricted single turbine aircraft for a company/individual to go through the TC process/cost on these B-1s?

I really couldn't answer that question. But I think there is a definite demand for good, inexpensive and supportable helicopters for private operators or commercial (Restricted) operation. Anyone that develops the certification basis for this helicopter should be able to configure them for sale, or alternatively, buy the lot and sell them ready to fly away. I suspect they may be rather popular. I wouldn't mind a PC-9 myself.

[airsail]

Having worked on these exact machines and the civil 206 there are a lots of differences between the two. Parts over the long term could be difficult to source as even the gearboxes use different part number components internally due to run dry requirements of the military version, eg, planetary carriers of the MRGB in the OH 58 are metal, the 206 uses plastic ones.

[Cyclic Hotline]

As the holder of the TC, you become the "Manufacturer" of the Product and if you have access to the original drawings, or the ability to essentially replicate the PMA process, you can make all the parts you want. Of course, you may be able to qualify the original OEM parts for the same application by identicality.

I'm interested in the configuration and differences in the Rotor and Drivetrain System with a different NR and Main Rotor diameter? Does anyone have a link to good data on this?

[as350nut]

What is the chance (or has it happened) that the OH58D 4 blade (406) with c30R might ever be sold off?

[wrench1]

What is the chance (or has it happened) that the OH58D 4 blade (406) with c30R might ever be sold off?
Doubtful. The D model is a completely different animal than the A/C models. The main issue is there are a number of integrated systems that will leave the aircraft in an unflyable condition once it goes through the de-mil process. Best bet is the D models will be sold off to foreign governments that have a role for them.

However, as soon as the US Navy procures their next basic rotorwing trainer you'll probably see a number of TH-57s hit the surplus market. The 57 is an off-the-shelf 206BIII complete with a TC.

[QUOTE=Cyclic Hotline;] you can make all the parts you want]
True. But the costs of tooling up and certifying a small run of specialized components for 22 aircraft would probably not balance out. The better bet would be to substitute existing gearboxes, etc from 58s or civilian 206s and upgrade the B-1s under the new TC. In my opinion/experience modifying the B-1 airframe to accept a 206BIII drivetrain would be more doable considering Bell has upgraded that same airframe multiple times since the original 206A and has a number of approved OEM SIs and IIs that could serve as the basis for the swap under the new CASA TC.

[Burleigh Effect]

Best bet is the D models will be sold off to foreign governments that have a role for them.

Last I heard Greece was buying 70 odd; no idea how they’ll pay for them. Unsure where the rest of them are headed, if anywhere. I’d wouldn’t be surprised if Iraq was interested in acquiring a few (at the right price), they haven’t had a good run with their mod’d 407s over the last few years.

Cheers

BE

[krypton_john]

The auctions are under way:

https://www.graysonline.com/promotions/military

The spare parts are mind boggling. Literally dozens of C20 turbines etc.

[PEASACAKE]

The auctions are under way:

https://www.graysonline.com/promotions/military

The spare parts are mind boggling. Literally dozens of C20 turbines etc.

Look closely at some of the part numbers on the labels, plenty of C2OB part numbers, so worth a lot more than plain C20...........a lot more.

[krypton_john]

Oh yeah, I assumed they were all C20B...

[as350nut]

What an engine!
Allison Model 250
30,000 MADE 16,000 in use

C20B 420hp
C40 715 hp
there are
C18
C18A
20
20B
20F
20J
20R
20 R /1
20 R /2
20 R/4
C20G
C20W

[mickjoebill]

A once in a lifetime opportunity for Oz to create a volunteer civil air patrol organisation.

It would help to reboot cadet air corps.

Federal election around the corner, timing is good.

[as350nut]

Well you win, sale prices much closer to 100k than 300k most of the good longer time to run machines were in the 120/130k range plus commission. maybe not that bad a result for the Australian Defense in that you are looking at a 40yr old airframe with 10/12,000 hrs I wonder if they cost much more than that when the Government bought them originally.

[gulliBell]

The last one I flew (from memory) had about 4500 hours on it. The Army got great value and utilization out of that purchase. Compared generally with ADF aviation purchases of recent years which usually run over-time, over-budget, and under-perform. Look at Tiger, Seasprite, Taipan, etc. etc.

And it was quite robust and reliable whilst in service all those years. I recall a few that were Cat 5'd (including a friend of mine who was killed in a training accident in the Oakey low flying training area), and a few others that were bent, but quite a few of the original order have survived until this day. I'm curious now what is going to come of them.