Stretched Gazelle or B206L1 C30 for SPIFR

[biz-buz]

I know there are many different threads regarding both these aircraft, but none that compare the two. I will be considering a stretched Gazelle or a L1 with a C30 engine not the original C28. The Gazelle wins hands down for the fun factor, but the L1 wins hands down on seats. The performance figures apart from the cruise/VNE are surprising similar.

My question is which of these aircraft is the cheapest to run based on parts, servicing and fuel consumption. I do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of SPIFR etc, nor any other contentions subject !! I am looking for comments from experienced pilots who have flown or operated both if possible, as to which might be the better long term prospect. Longranger costs are not too difficult to find but DOC or any other costs for a Gazelle are difficult. Any general experience based figures, info, rules of thumb, regarding costs would all be most helpful for either or both aircraft.

I am also looking to let the aircraft to a flying school for IFR training to help pay the bills, but keep it on the N register. I hope this is possible, perhaps not ? I know there are issues using N reg aircraft for commercial work, but am not sure if this includes flight training? I will obviously check what the French or EASA have to say about this, but if anybody has any first hand experience on this I would be most grateful for any helpful comments. Please bear in mind this is for France.

Thank you all in advance for any help and assistance.

[Torquetalk]

Billund Air Centre used to do the SPIFR on the Longranger, and may still do. Perhaps a good place to get advice?

Longranger plusses are also economy (very low fuel consumption) and hanger space. And a super smooth ride.

[Saint Jack]

"...Longranger plusses are also economy (very low fuel consumption) and hanger space. And a super smooth ride..." Not only these, but also in terms of support the 206L1 wins hands-down in parts availability and technical/engineering support. And, it's an easy helicopter to maintain with only the rotor brake access likely to result in an expanded vocabulary. But how often do you need to get to the rotor brake?

[Hughes500]

issues with the gazelle is the engine and parts unless you are allowed to fit ex military parts in France ???? Bear in mind teh French Military still use them

[biz-buz]

Billund Air Centre used to do the SPIFR on the Longranger, and may still do. Perhaps a good place to get advice?

Longranger plusses are also economy (very low fuel consumption) and hanger space. And a super smooth ride.

Quite agree ! All three points are very important for operational pleasure !

Tks

[biz-buz]

Quite agree, especially engine parts !

[biz-buz]

Thanks St Jack, parts and all the points raised by Torquetalk have swung it for me. Sadly as an ex Gazelle pilot I would have prefered the Gazelle, but all those other factors do weigh in in favour of the L1. Tks

[wrench1]

but all those other factors do weigh in in favour of the L1. Tks
Just another point to throw out there. If the 206 you have in mind is not currently SPIFR and you are keeping the N reg, you may want to check availability of an SPIFR STC kit for a L1/C30P aircraft. And to add to the above, from the mx side, supporting an N reg 206 series is much easier than any N reg legacy Gazelle, etc.

[helihub]

cheapest to run

This is not a valid way to compare two different types, surely? You could find two examples of the same type that have running cost figures very different to each other.

[md 600 driver]

Using a gazelle for commercial use and training may work out very expensive quite good for private use when the owner looks after it

[OvertHawk]

I don't think you can use an N-reg for training in EASA-land.

You might be able to use if for training for N-rated pilots (but not if it is on a commercial basis - i.e they are paying for the training)) but I'm almost certain that any EASA training must be carried out on an EASA reg aircraft.

I'm sure someone will come along and confirm whether i'm right or wrong.

OH

[paco]

I would always choose Bell over anything French for customer support, and the Gazelle would not be my first choice for commercial viability. Having flown both types on instruments, one being an IFR L1, the L1 would be a lot less twitchy (there is not a lot to beat a well set up LongRanger). And whoever said that the 206L wasn't fun? :)

[md 600 driver]

As for IFR the stretched POH states that IFR flight is prohibited in the gazelle

[meleagertoo]

Everything about this thread suggests we are discussing Flightsim or perhaps just plain whimsy. It doesn't even begin to sound real.
For a start a C30 powered Longranger is an L3, not an L1.
The starry-eyed wishful thinking in the lead post , the unfeasible comparison of two utterly dis-similar (and one utterly inappropriate) types for legally impossible or uncertifiable tasks and the extraordinary 24 hr decision period based on a couple of anonymous opinions on the internet suggest to me that the OP might do better to buy both programmes and just see which he prefers.

[megan]

a C30 powered Longranger is an L3, not an L1It might be originally, but then there is an STC.

https://www.asimro.com/bell-206l-1-c30p-stc

You might want to read and comprehend what he OP said,I will be considering a stretched Gazelle or a L1 with a C30 engine not the original C28

[wrench1]

It might be originally, but then there is an STC.
FYI: there were several L-1/C30P STCs but I think only one or two are still procurable. Bell also has/had a bulletin that upgrades an L-1 (and L-3) to L-4 performance which they call a L-1+ and L-3+ with the L-1 getting a C30. And just for some trivia there was also a twin-engine upgrade for the L-1 airframe via an STC or factory new called the GeminiST and Bell 206LT respectively.

[meleagertoo]

It might be originally, but then there is an STC.

https://www.asimro.com/bell-206l-1-c30p-stc

You might want to read and comprehend what he OP said,

Strangely I did, oddly enough but thanks for the advice anyway.

I was just pointing out the sheer unlikelyness of the entire scenario.

If you want to teach advanced driving on a commercial basis in Europe you don't set your choice between an American registered vintage Maserati with a pickup conversion and an elderly Daimler limo with a V12 shoe-horned into it. Do you?

[widgeon]

Strangely I did, oddly enough but thanks for the advice anyway.

I was just pointing out the sheer unlikelyness of the entire scenario.

If you want to teach advanced driving on a commercial basis in Europe you don't set your choice between an American registered vintage Maserati with a pickup conversion and an elderly Daimler limo with a V12 shoe-horned into it. Do you?
If recall correctly , the big issue with SPIFR for a single engine helicopter was the alternate electrical power source . I know that American Eurocopter had a limited STC for AS 350 BA and Bell have one for 407 SR11241DS. Cannot recall how they overcame the power issue.

[wrench1]

If recall correctly , the big issue with SPIFR for a single engine helicopter was the alternate electrical power source . I know that American Eurocopter had a limited STC for AS 350 BA and Bell have one for 407 SR11241DS. Cannot recall how they overcame the power issue.
The alternate power source (plus a few other items) was from back before they revised Part 27 in the late 90s and was dealt with by a 2nd gen on the engine. The revised Part 27 required a "1 in a Billion" failure rate for any critical systems which was different than Part 23 airplane IFR requirement of "1 in a Million" failures. This high ratio required dual hyd, dual/triple navs, etc. and basically killed any new single IFR platforms. The original Bell SPIFR kits predated that revision. Fortunately the discussion of single IFR came to the fore front around 2015 or so and laid the ground work for the recently approved 407 and AW119 IFR STCs.

[gipsymagpie]

Billund Air Centre used to do the SPIFR on the Longranger, and may still do. Perhaps a good place to get advice?

Longranger plusses are also economy (very low fuel consumption) and hanger space. And a super smooth ride.

I think Vantage Aviation at Thruxton have that aircraft or at least they have an IFR B206

[Saint Jack]

At the risk of appearing a little argumentative, the 206L-1 was originaly fitted with a Detriot Deisel Allison 250-C28B engine, not a C28. As an engineer, I took care of one such example in the tropics for many years and it never gave any trouble, neither did the helicopter performance suffer, it always carried what we were tasked to do so - albeit at sea-level.

[rotorrookie]

cant go wrong with Long Ranger and L1 with C-30 upgrade is nice platform. OY-HPJ is the reg on Billund Air Center (BAC) 206L with IFR cert. it had belt driven back up generator. A Gazzelle with early design fenestron, I would not even compair it.

[widgeon]

The alternate power source (plus a few other items) was from back before they revised Part 27 in the late 90s and was dealt with by a 2nd gen on the engine. The revised Part 27 required a "1 in a Billion" failure rate for any critical systems which was different than Part 23 airplane IFR requirement of "1 in a Million" failures. This high ratio required dual hyd, dual/triple navs, etc. and basically killed any new single IFR platforms. The original Bell SPIFR kits predated that revision. Fortunately the discussion of single IFR came to the fore front around 2015 or so and laid the ground work for the recently approved 407 and AW119 IFR STCs.

Thanks for update , I have been out of industry for many years so my experience is also a little dated.

[biz-buz]

If recall correctly , the big issue with SPIFR for a single engine helicopter was the alternate electrical power source . I know that American Eurocopter had a limited STC for AS 350 BA and Bell have one for 407 SR11241DS. Cannot recall how they overcame the power issue.

Interesting to hear all the various comments. I have actually owned a SPIFR certified B206 L1 in the past so it does exist. This Mod was actually installed by Collins prior to delivery by Bell to the client and has all the necessary dual systems altimeters and genes that it needs. Just to remind those who know or who dont know, the Accessory Gearbox on the C28 and I believe on the other versions 20B and 30P, I think, actually has a secondary Generator fixing pad on the opposite side of the Gearbox to the Starter Gene, this secondary pad is only used as a Gene. The advantage of this secondary one is that it is driven a different drive train, if the engine stops for what ever reason, the standby gene keeps turning as there is a bypass gear train in the gearbox which keeps it generating. Just FYI the fitting of a C30 engine to a L1 does not make it a L3. It makes it a L1 with a C30 upgrade.

[RVDT]

The advantage of this secondary one is that it is driven a different drive train, if the engine stops for what ever reason, the standby gene keeps turning as there is a bypass gear train in the gearbox which keeps it generating.

So that would bypass the freewheel unit as well? Don't think so but hey in 45 years of fixing and flying them I learn something new every day. Mostly that a lot of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about!

[albatross]

Thread drift:
Re redundant electrical power on single engine helicopters.
We had a 205A-1 doing magnetometer surveys.
The system required lots of power.
Initially this was provided by a generator mounted on the hard points on the port/left side. it was as big as a home freezer providing lots of drag and also weighed a lot reducing payload.
After a bit of head scratching and In a move of pure genius they yanked that generator off. They then removed the rotor brake installing a transmission driven generator in its place. Worked very well.

[albatross]

So that would bypass the freewheel unit as well? Don't think so but hey in 45 years of fixing and flying them I learn something new every day. Mostly that a lot of people haven't got a clue what they are talking about!

Well, it might work if Gen 1 fails and #2 takes over the load but as you say if the engine resigns both generators will quit forthwith.
I assume the battery would then provide power for the short duration of the speedy return to the planet’s surface.

[wrench1]

if the engine stops for what ever reason, the standby gene keeps turning as there is a bypass gear train in the gearbox which keeps it generating.
FYI: While each generator is driven by different internal N1 gearsets, if the engine stops so do the generators as indicated above. Regardless the 2nd generator is there due to electrical failure only per the requirements.
I assume the battery would then provide power for the short duration of the speedy return to the planet’s surface.
While in theory and use on the airplane side this is possible they have yet to accept the battery as an alternate power source for IFR SE rotorcraft. But it is being discussed. As I recall the current SPIFR offerings in the AW119 have dual generators, dual hydraulics, etc. The Bell 407 GXi IFR kit has dual generators but received waivers on several systems like dual hydraulics. Supposedly each model will be at HeliExpo 2022 with each OEM making their sales pitch to their SPIFR SE STC. Will be interesting if it does catch on.

[biz-buz]

Just to further develop the chat, I accept the the Longranger option is by far the best, does anybody out there have any experience or ideas on the major differences between the Collins or the Sfena Autopilot offerings, as both were offered by Bell in their original SP IFR kits. I am sure one must be better than the other, offer more options be operationally smoother or any other factor.

Any feed back would be most helpful for my project.

[paco]

We had the Collins - be careful of the last letter in the serial number - apparently it determines whether it was fitted at the factory or as an aftermarket option. Caused a few weeks' delay with the Alton Towers one.

[havick]

Buy yourself an older twin fit for purpose?

[Hughes500]

Havick, hit the nail on the head an old F1 or F2 355 can be bought cheaper than a 206L3

[biz-buz]

Ok still listening to all the various comments. I cannot believe there is not an IRE, instructor, or just an experienced pilot who has not at some time used both types of autopilot ? Any gut feeling, hearsay or other comments are most often founded on reality and somebody's experience, anything would be helpful.

Yes I do hear the various comments about buying an old twin, but will have to look into the running costs and useful load. Obviously I am not specifically planning to do lots of SP IFR flying but if the capability and the equipment is there it can be very comforting and enable a slightly marginal VFR flight to be completed safely and legally. I know there are always the arguments about if the weather is that bad, just cancel and reschedule, but the unexpected does happen, and sometimes the options are not as varied as one might hope.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ... just tuned into this (after being away for some years) ....

I did my initial Heli IFR Rating (and then my CFII) with Jet Fleet in Dallas back in '79 &'80 ... they had at that time the only FAA CERTIFIED SP IFR SA341G (stretched) Gazelle in existence.
It was a delight to fly and had a full Sperry Stabilised Autopilot system (very similar to the one as fitted in the Bell 412).
They (Jet Fleet) also had a SFENA Ministab system in a JetRanger (might have been a Longranger ?? memory fails me) which worked differently but achieved the same goal i:e a safe stable IF ride.

First Off ... good luck finding an IFR certified Gazelle on the market. To put one in the hands of a flight school for REAL IFR training will require a certified machine (insurance ??) the upkeep of which will be very pricey and being a ''one off'' will need a good 'Greeny' to keep it working well.

The reality is either the Bell product (modern and updated) or an ''all singing all dancing'' EC130 would be a better choice.

Having said that my advice born of 45 years flying in all sorts of places and flying REAL IFR OPS (in twins) is to forget using a single engine machine and go for a proper IFR equipped twin that will allow training and better still will allow for (some) Public Transport Operations which would benefit the operator.

Good Luck ... Cheers.

AND ... as an addendum .... marginal I/F flight in a complex machine with autopilot really requires a lot of familiarity with A/P mode choice and selection ... I would not recommend using a complex machine for occasional Marginal VFR scud running use will end in tears eventually.

[md 600 driver]

Spinwing
The poster was wanting to use a stretched gazelle for IFR this is prohibited according to the flight manual for IFR flight in a stretch Standard cabin is authorised

[spinwing]

md 600 driver ....

Errrr ... IF the OP wants to do SP IFR (in ANY Helicopter) then he need to be certified and so does the machine ... the days of IMC ops OCTA are long gone ... thus the assumption is he will need an appropriately configured machine ... I know the standard machines are only certified for VFR flight ... I did not say any different ... I just pointed out that there WAS a SA341G Stretched Gazelle that WAS certified by the FAA for SP IFR flight that means it was APPROVED, CERTIFIED and thus would have had a Flight Manual Supplement to allow same .... thus you are not quite correct.

The OP also asked if there were any IF experienced pilots that had flown both types ... so I responded as I had flown both types IFR ... what did I say that was incorrect ?

[md 600 driver]

md 600 driver ....

Errrr ... IF the OP wants to do SP IFR (in ANY Helicopter) then he need to be certified and so does the machine ... the days of IMC ops OCTA are long gone ... thus the assumption is he will need an appropriately configured machine ... I know the standard machines are only certified for VFR flight ... I did not say any different ... I just pointed out that there WAS a SA341G Stretched Gazelle that WAS certified by the FAA for SP IFR flight that means it was APPROVED, CERTIFIED and thus would have had a Flight Manual Supplement to allow same .... thus you are not quite correct.

The OP also asked if there were any IF experienced pilots that had flown both types ... so I responded as I had flown both types IFR ... what did I say that was incorrect ?
I didn’t say you were incorrect
I just wanted point out a fact from the flight manual that any pilot flying the stretch gazelle should read
I also own a stretched gazelle and in the flight manual supplement 14 for the lengthened cabin it states
limitations
IFR flight is prohibited ,both with and without IFR equipment as per supp 13(IFR flight package )