Bell versus others
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell versus others
The Bell 210 is yet another example of a once great company losing its way. If the designers at Agusta or Eurocopter or Sikorsky came up with a "new" ship like the 210, they'd probably lose the respect of their peers or their jobs!
Red, you have a chance to make a difference. Listen to an EC-120 take off then listen to a Jetranger take off. Hear the difference? Look at the "broom cupboard" in a Long Ranger, then sit in the back of a Squirrel. Feel the difference? Stop giving us 4 bladed Long Rangers or resurrected Hueys (hey, I like the 50's and 60's AND the Beatles just like everyone else, but this is a new century) then calling them "new" ships.
Bell has lost most of its private owners customers, a large chunk of military contracts going to Sikorsky, Boeing, Eurocopter, etc. Your marketshare is diminishing. Let me throw Bell a challenge - is the company capable of building an EC 130 equivalent? Time to retire your old designers and hire a few new young ones, preferably from Europe.
I love Bell but I don't like your old fashioned ways. Does anyone out there agree?
Red, you have a chance to make a difference. Listen to an EC-120 take off then listen to a Jetranger take off. Hear the difference? Look at the "broom cupboard" in a Long Ranger, then sit in the back of a Squirrel. Feel the difference? Stop giving us 4 bladed Long Rangers or resurrected Hueys (hey, I like the 50's and 60's AND the Beatles just like everyone else, but this is a new century) then calling them "new" ships.
Bell has lost most of its private owners customers, a large chunk of military contracts going to Sikorsky, Boeing, Eurocopter, etc. Your marketshare is diminishing. Let me throw Bell a challenge - is the company capable of building an EC 130 equivalent? Time to retire your old designers and hire a few new young ones, preferably from Europe.
I love Bell but I don't like your old fashioned ways. Does anyone out there agree?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren Buffett..Love that name, smells like Money... Hope he does not mind you using it.........
I have flown Bell Products 34 years and agree with what your saying.. Loved the Long Ranger till I got in a Squirell.
I also still am very P/Oed that they didnt welcome the Surplus Market with assistance.........As a result most Law Enforcement agencies have now gone Eurocopter. I estimate Bell lost Big time money for theirs and HAIs stubborn stance.
Not to kick a dead/dying horse, but we all remember Hughes Helicopters?? And they sit where in the Market today?? 500 Series is one of the greatest sling machines ever, within its weight range.
Maybe Eurocopter or Sikorsky will just buy Bell and put them out of their Misery
:
I have flown Bell Products 34 years and agree with what your saying.. Loved the Long Ranger till I got in a Squirell.
I also still am very P/Oed that they didnt welcome the Surplus Market with assistance.........As a result most Law Enforcement agencies have now gone Eurocopter. I estimate Bell lost Big time money for theirs and HAIs stubborn stance.
Not to kick a dead/dying horse, but we all remember Hughes Helicopters?? And they sit where in the Market today?? 500 Series is one of the greatest sling machines ever, within its weight range.
Maybe Eurocopter or Sikorsky will just buy Bell and put them out of their Misery
:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Bell products are inferior because the management and designers are out of touch with what their customers want. Some years back I attended a Helo conference in Hawaii. Air Tour operators talked about quieter machines, better visibility, lower DoC and Bell didn't even attend!! Their competitors were there taking notes, presenting drawings, models, talking about fantails, etc.
Then the surplus Bell saga, the tilt rotor mis-step, losing to Sikorsky, etc etc.
Ironically, you see it now in the fixed wing RPT community. Boeing is losing business by the billions to Airbus world-wide. If I were a Bell designer, I'd be too embarassed to talk to EC or Robinson or Agusta. Luckily for them, there's the Russians.
You're right - the rot is way too deep now and someone needs to acquire this once fine company.
Then the surplus Bell saga, the tilt rotor mis-step, losing to Sikorsky, etc etc.
Ironically, you see it now in the fixed wing RPT community. Boeing is losing business by the billions to Airbus world-wide. If I were a Bell designer, I'd be too embarassed to talk to EC or Robinson or Agusta. Luckily for them, there's the Russians.
You're right - the rot is way too deep now and someone needs to acquire this once fine company.
It's not just the airframes
The problem is not just in the airframes either. How long has the helicopter and fixed wing market been crying out for new engines, that close the gap between automotive and aero technology? And what has the market leader done? As a consequence several companies have developed new engines both aero-diesels and new V-configuration spark ignition units. Once these units are mature then Lycoming will simply not be able to compete. IMHO this is criminal mismanagement of a very powerful position, Lycoming should have used their market position to pioneer new products that would maintain their position as market leader into the future and expand the percieved limits of the market.
As for Bell, I have little to add, they are so far behind and have clearly no idea what is required to compete. I only thing I can think to say is that they have had their eyes (a wallets) to tightly focused on V22 to notice their bread-and-butter markets slipping away.
It's a shame, but there are very many clever people and comapanies around the globe, you can bet that if Bell, Lycoming or anybody else sits back and lets the market move on then somebody will fill the gap. There are certainly changes ahead in the helicopter and aero-engine markets.
CRAN
As for Bell, I have little to add, they are so far behind and have clearly no idea what is required to compete. I only thing I can think to say is that they have had their eyes (a wallets) to tightly focused on V22 to notice their bread-and-butter markets slipping away.
It's a shame, but there are very many clever people and comapanies around the globe, you can bet that if Bell, Lycoming or anybody else sits back and lets the market move on then somebody will fill the gap. There are certainly changes ahead in the helicopter and aero-engine markets.
CRAN
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Bell,
It seems that the market place where you have done your past business has moved location, but you are still there, trading alone.
All the others have moved to richer pastures and made the road to that pasture an almost inpassable quagmire.
From my vantage point, that the slippery downhill slope that is before you has a gradient beyond your abilities to render self assistance.
You are doomed by your very own failings. Poor eyesight and deafness.
It is possible that you have enough sight to sign off your workers and deaf enough not to hear their complaints.
I'm sorry that it has come to this. Having to write to you on such a matter. But you have had many warnings and decided to ignor them.
Best of luck in the future.
Yours sincerely
Head Turner
It seems that the market place where you have done your past business has moved location, but you are still there, trading alone.
All the others have moved to richer pastures and made the road to that pasture an almost inpassable quagmire.
From my vantage point, that the slippery downhill slope that is before you has a gradient beyond your abilities to render self assistance.
You are doomed by your very own failings. Poor eyesight and deafness.
It is possible that you have enough sight to sign off your workers and deaf enough not to hear their complaints.
I'm sorry that it has come to this. Having to write to you on such a matter. But you have had many warnings and decided to ignor them.
Best of luck in the future.
Yours sincerely
Head Turner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airframes, T&T Straps, Engine, Noise, etc
Quite. Look at their hapless T&T straps department. Just hopeless. Around 30 years working on the problem and no solution. I thought us Americans were supposed to be great engineers. The identical part number is OK to fly "on condition" on Kiowas but just 2 years on civilian machines. Love flying the 412's but it must surely be the most efficient converter of JetA-1 to noise in its weight category. There are straighforward engineering considerations that can be done to reduce noise.
Maybe Bell is like the Harley of the rotary world. Lovable and iconic but no point comparing it to Jap, Italian or British bikes.
Maybe Bell is like the Harley of the rotary world. Lovable and iconic but no point comparing it to Jap, Italian or British bikes.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren, you're wrong, the 212 is much more efficient at converting Jet fuel to Noise.. 
Bell may have problems, but I still prefer to be strapped into one of their products over a few other choices out there.
Bell may have problems, but I still prefer to be strapped into one of their products over a few other choices out there.
Bell are indeed a pretty screwed up company these days. They bet the farm on the Tilt Rotor and it's a long way from generating useable revenue (ie: profit).
Small ships are the same problem, lack of investment causing a complete lack of a comprehensive modern viable product line.
But the 210 - well, Bell are actually onto something there. Go out and find me a 205 or a 212 for sale today.
Bell don't make either anymore and the demand in the utility sector is through the roof. There is also nothing to replace them with either. It may be old and not particularly glamorous, but it is a safe, capable airframe and a revenue generator for any operator with them.
I think the 210 will actually be a big seller - although I would have rather had a PT6 engine.
Pretty ironic that the machine that replaces the 212 and 205 in the commercial market is the same machine again?
Small ships are the same problem, lack of investment causing a complete lack of a comprehensive modern viable product line.
But the 210 - well, Bell are actually onto something there. Go out and find me a 205 or a 212 for sale today.
Bell don't make either anymore and the demand in the utility sector is through the roof. There is also nothing to replace them with either. It may be old and not particularly glamorous, but it is a safe, capable airframe and a revenue generator for any operator with them.
I think the 210 will actually be a big seller - although I would have rather had a PT6 engine.
Pretty ironic that the machine that replaces the 212 and 205 in the commercial market is the same machine again?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just the Tilt Rotor mistakes
I don't think it is just the Tilt Rotor mistakes that drained cash away from R&D into design of new ships. In the 60's and 70's when they were literally drowning in cash, management did nothing except to milk its 206 and Huey lines. There is an incredible parallel to say, Apple (Insanely Great) Computers to terrible DOS in the 80's. Who dominates now? Bell management stands guilty of neglect over the years.
The same happened to car manufacturing when Japanese management took the job of competing for market share seriously.
Bell needs a psychological win in the helo market place by not producing ships that look like the Huey or 206 or 212. Don't get me wrong, Bell helos are safe, great to fly and cheap to run. It's just that this once great company is going nowhere.
The same happened to car manufacturing when Japanese management took the job of competing for market share seriously.
Bell needs a psychological win in the helo market place by not producing ships that look like the Huey or 206 or 212. Don't get me wrong, Bell helos are safe, great to fly and cheap to run. It's just that this once great company is going nowhere.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think it's great that Bell is offering an affordable replacement to the 205. Yes for tour operators, or those ferrying rig-pigs it's not what you might want. But for those of us fighting fires, there isn't anything offered that can compete with it. Anything comparable is at least twice the price. Go and check on the price of a new 412, it's around $6 million, and it isn't a bush machine. A Firehawk ?? $8 million for a used airframe, now add several million to make it a used Firehawk. Eurocopter doesn't make a proper utility medium. The B2's, and B3's are great intermediates, but when you need to fly 10-14 firefighters to a fire, well maybe they could sling them.
Bell does need to produce a new light single in a bad way. As an interim, I think civilising the OH-58D would be a neat machine. C30 in a 206 with 4 blades. Be a heck of a stump puller. A brand new airframe will be at least 6 years away, so something "new" in the mean time might get people thinking Bell again. Or instead of Boeing, or Sikorsky buying Bell, maybe they should do like Eurocopter, and Airbus did, and get the government to buy a big chunk of it. It's amazing what you can come up with when you have a government behind you.
Cheers
Bell does need to produce a new light single in a bad way. As an interim, I think civilising the OH-58D would be a neat machine. C30 in a 206 with 4 blades. Be a heck of a stump puller. A brand new airframe will be at least 6 years away, so something "new" in the mean time might get people thinking Bell again. Or instead of Boeing, or Sikorsky buying Bell, maybe they should do like Eurocopter, and Airbus did, and get the government to buy a big chunk of it. It's amazing what you can come up with when you have a government behind you.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn, I think what Randy was referring to was producing a civvie OH58D.
Remove the mast-mounted sight, the armor (if it has any?) and It would be the best "hot and high" 5 seater in the Industry, I would imagine. Oops, I forgot the Lama ...well second best?
Remove the mast-mounted sight, the armor (if it has any?) and It would be the best "hot and high" 5 seater in the Industry, I would imagine. Oops, I forgot the Lama ...well second best?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With rumours of Frank Robinson designing a 5 or 6 seater ( R55/R66) then the likes of Bell and Eurocopter need to start thinking about designing a new aircraft to compete against him.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407 Driver is right. I was talking about a 'civvie' OH-58 a direct 206 replacement. It makes financial sense, since most of the R&D has been paid for, they just need to certify it. They already have the tooling. It would fill the gap between the 206, and any new airframe that Bell is thinking of designing.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 or 6 seat Robbie, sounds like a BIG piston engine to lift that ! I think the 206B3 and EC120 fit nicely into that market already, so Frank has some stiff competition awaiting him. What's the going rate on a used 206? 300 K USD?
---
Randy, bring that "New" OH-58D turned Bell 40? JetRanger IV out here and I'd volunteer to do some altitude testing !
One problem with the concept is the Blades, a 206 will fit into a very narrow hangar, but a 4 bladed system eats hangar space faster than a pilot eats at a Rib BBQ !
---
Randy, bring that "New" OH-58D turned Bell 40? JetRanger IV out here and I'd volunteer to do some altitude testing !
One problem with the concept is the Blades, a 206 will fit into a very narrow hangar, but a 4 bladed system eats hangar space faster than a pilot eats at a Rib BBQ !
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407 D I just bet you would. 
Would we be able to wipe the grin off of your chin ?? Heck if they did bring out a civvie version of the OH-58, I might even want to go back and fly lights.
In order to compete, I think robinson would have to put a turbine in anything 5 or 6 seats. I seem to remember reading something quite awhile back that the FAA didn't want any more light piston helicopters being developed. That the type certificate for the R44 was the last one they were thinking of granting.
Cheers
Would we be able to wipe the grin off of your chin ?? Heck if they did bring out a civvie version of the OH-58, I might even want to go back and fly lights. In order to compete, I think robinson would have to put a turbine in anything 5 or 6 seats. I seem to remember reading something quite awhile back that the FAA didn't want any more light piston helicopters being developed. That the type certificate for the R44 was the last one they were thinking of granting.
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Couple of things
Getting a civil version of the OH-58D certified would not be a cheap or quick process. For one thing, the maximum speed of the OH-58D is really pretty low and wouldn't cut the mustard with any civil operator.
And what would it do that the 407 can't do now?
The FAA can gripe and moan all they want about not wanting to certify another piston engine helicopter. They don't really have a choice - it's allowed. If someone applies, and meets the requirements, they have to give a type certificate to the applicant.
Getting a civil version of the OH-58D certified would not be a cheap or quick process. For one thing, the maximum speed of the OH-58D is really pretty low and wouldn't cut the mustard with any civil operator.
And what would it do that the 407 can't do now?
The FAA can gripe and moan all they want about not wanting to certify another piston engine helicopter. They don't really have a choice - it's allowed. If someone applies, and meets the requirements, they have to give a type certificate to the applicant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Designing a new Bell for Bell
Ok, I am going to do something radical here on the 'Net. We're gonna give Mr Bell FEEDBACK.
1. Widen the 206 airframe, say 3 across in the front and 4 across at the back.
2. C-30 engine with 4 blades OR a bigger Arriel engine.
3. Fan tail - much quieter than open tail rotor
4. No steam gauges, please. Show 'em American ingenuity and bring in glass.
5. Fix the T&T straps problem. Threaten to fire engineers that take longer than 30 years to solve a problem You will get better productivity.
6. Get rid of that broom cupboard.
7. Put in a "smart" set of skids like the EC-120 - wirestrikes are impossible from the bottom half of the fuselage.
8. Flat floor.
9. Crash worthy seats.
10. Fly at B3 speeds, lift at Lama loads, noise like an EC-120
11. Fix all the usual cracks that appear in the 206 and 407.
12. Offer trade-in deals for all 206 and 407 owners.
13. Make it safe - Model 407AD got grounded too many times.
14. Make it with an IFR option.
Thanks, Red - I just know you are not going to suffer from the Persian Messenger Syndrome. In Persia, they really did shoot the messengers that brought bad news to the king ...
1. Widen the 206 airframe, say 3 across in the front and 4 across at the back.
2. C-30 engine with 4 blades OR a bigger Arriel engine.
3. Fan tail - much quieter than open tail rotor
4. No steam gauges, please. Show 'em American ingenuity and bring in glass.
5. Fix the T&T straps problem. Threaten to fire engineers that take longer than 30 years to solve a problem You will get better productivity.
6. Get rid of that broom cupboard.
7. Put in a "smart" set of skids like the EC-120 - wirestrikes are impossible from the bottom half of the fuselage.
8. Flat floor.
9. Crash worthy seats.
10. Fly at B3 speeds, lift at Lama loads, noise like an EC-120
11. Fix all the usual cracks that appear in the 206 and 407.
12. Offer trade-in deals for all 206 and 407 owners.
13. Make it safe - Model 407AD got grounded too many times.
14. Make it with an IFR option.
Thanks, Red - I just know you are not going to suffer from the Persian Messenger Syndrome. In Persia, they really did shoot the messengers that brought bad news to the king ...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little research turned up a max cruise speed of 125 KIAS. Now I would assume that this may be due to the Longbow pod on top of the mast. From what I've read it also has over 2 hrs endurance, and a max GW of 4500 lbs (unarmed) or 5500 lbs (armed). Operators have been getting along with slow helicopters for a long time. The standard 206 ain't what you'd call speedy, and it still sells. To add the gee-whiz factor, they could always add some of them new-fangled tv screens in the cockpit.
Certifying it wouldn't be cheap, but they do have quite a bit of test data already available that they could use.
Not all jobs require a 6 seater. There are many jobs that require only hauling around 2-4 passengers, but need a good lifter.
Cheers
Certifying it wouldn't be cheap, but they do have quite a bit of test data already available that they could use.
And what would it do that the 407 can't do now?
Cheers