EC120

[IHL]

Belly Tank & Aesir:

I disagree. I know several pilots that have experienced it. It is real and it is out there but it can be managed.

When I fly a Jet Ranger I am always very cognizant of wind direction and the conditions that can lead to LTE.

[belly tank]

IHL,

I didnt say that it its not an issue, maybe my wording was a bit obscure, however as you say with proper management and decision making it is overcome.

and i think this applies to most if not all aspect of flying.

cheers!

[leemind]

$1m

headsethair - US$1m ~ Ģ570k

You'll easily get an EC120 for that money. Quick search of the 'net or look in Helimart found several. e.g. 2002 with 1,000 hrs for EUR870k (Ģ558k)

[Thomas coupling]

Belly Tank / Aesir:

Ignorance is bliss....I suggest you get to know your a/c a little more:

NickLappos said:


posted 3rd October 2005 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rotorboy,

In an LTE study I did about 7 years ago, based on worldwide accidents of all helos, using four different data bases, this is what it showed:

95% of all LTE accidents involve Bell 206 models.

Virtually 100% of all LTE accidents involve Bell helicopters (one Robbie in UK was reported as LTE, but was probably over pitching).

My conclusion was that the inadequate size of the Bell 206 tail rotor was the principal cause of its LTE woes.
A second finding is that all tail rotor authority events were being called LTE because the marketing campaign conducted by Bell was effective on removing the heat from their design.

LTE really does not exist, it is a label used to blame the pilot when a marginal helicopter loses yaw control within its approved envelope. That does not mean that a 206 can be milked by an experienced pilot to not lose tail authority.

LTE cannot be experienced by any helo built to modern standards (larger tail rotor). It is impossible to get LTE in a Black Hawk, Apache, S76, H-500, EH-101, Lynx, etc because they have adequate tail rotors.

[John Eacott]

TC,

Beg to differ: maybe with the small tail rotor, but the 206 with the later tail rotor is quite manageable, and we operate frequently hot and high.

I'd be making more of an issue of the EC120's low inertia main rotor system, and the R22-like autorotation characteristics I'd have grave reservations using an EC120 for low level operations that wouldn't cause any concern in a 206, because I'm not sure that I'd get away with a survivable auto. Apparently the factory pilots prefer to run on around 40-50kts in the 120, maybe for a good reason!

[belly tank]

Thomas Coupling wrote,

"Ignorance is bliss....I suggest you get to know your a/c a little more:"

I think i have reasonable knowledge of My aircraft the 206 in this case, ive done most ops that require the use of alot of pedal mainly OGE hover work etc etc hot and as high as you can get here in australia!. and as i said in my limited experience on Jetrangers 1000 + hrs on type to date ive never had a problem or accident, and as i mentioned before its managable if you treat your aircraft with respect it deserves.

so your statement above is totally ignorant about the fact you should give a bit more credit to your peers before you make assumptions on their ability

[B Sousa]

IF you have a Million to play with and look around just a bit I think you can get a pretty nice B206L4 and have some spare change for cockpit toys.
Give it some thought.

[Aesir]

NickLappos said:

Thomas coupling..

Ohhohh.. If Nick said it then it MUST be true


The original question was:

Please express pros and cons for comparisson and your final choice. $1 mil budget. thanks.

In my opinion the perceived LTE "Problem" of the 206 is not an issue in choosing which aircraft to buy! If properly flown itīs not a problem!!

Like was said for $1 mil you can get a nice 206L4 which is certainly a much superior aircraft to the EC-120.

I have a friend who operates EC-120 and from talking to him he seems to have unusual problems with parts availability and cost Donīt get me started there..few months ago he had to replace the flashing beacon at a cost of $9.000.- The whole thing had to be replaced as a unit, not possible to change the bulb!

He flyīs his EC-120 about 350 to 400 hrs a year. I fly my AB206B a 1971 model with.. yes you guessed it, the small diameter tail rotor.. I fly about 150 hrs a year and guess who takes more money to the bank after all costs have been figured in? I do.

Needless to say his EC-120 is for sale.

When comparing the two EC-120 & B206 one should consider the autorotative characteristics as well of both aircraft. Since they are single engine I would much rather be in a B206 following engine failure, both aircraft do have engine failures like any motor vehicles and the outcome of such a failure will be more likely to be succesful in the B-206.

Unfortunately itīs difficult to do a "Study" of succesful outcomes of engine failure landings comparing aircraft since many countries do not require any reports to be made if the landing was succesful with no damage.

Here is my suggestion for the original poster:

"Be Smart, Fly Bell"

[Thomas coupling]

Belly up: I wouldnt brag about a 1000hrs on type if I were you. There are people on here who have flown that on type in only 18 months, that is not a lot of experience
And you are not my peer...you can't even spell Chief Pilot in your profile never mind act like one


Aesir et al:

Join the real world eh? You can't keep flying a 40 yr old design forever....one has to move on and invest in technology with all its merits. Safety is the industry mantra now.

Aviation news comments

Just another view..................................

Aesir: interesting web site.

[Dynamic Component]

I have a few hours on the EC120 and 206.Each has its own role.For pax work I would choose the 120.For anything else I would choose the 206.I would prefer a 206L4. Just keep in mind that you cant load 4 adults and pilot and use all the baggage space in the 120.

TC- who pis*ed in your porridge? SO what if belly tank can't spell. And they are entitled to their own opinions.(I can't spell either )

[belly tank]

Thanks DC!

See TC i do have a peer!..your words were the last straw i have now enrolled in spelling classes, ill let you know how my progress goes

As for the thread...you will like this TC i also have limited experience in the 120 and have found it to be a nice aircraft for pax work as DC has stated, nice open cabin etc etc, its horses for courses what are you planning on doing with the machine you choose CPT Hobbs, is it mainly going to be used for the business man alone or will most of your loads be with a full compliment of passengers.

as DC has stated have you looked at a L4!

[Aesir]

Thank you for your view Thomas..

You said:

Join the real world eh? You can't keep flying a 40 yr old design forever....one has to move on and invest in technology with all its merits. Safety is the industry mantra now.

That is exactly why I fly B-206..SAFETY! Get it?

I want to be in something that can land safely if I have engine failure which we all know can happen in all helicopters anytime and if I donīt have two engines then for sure Iīm going to be in a helicopter that can autorotate safely.

I know why LTE happens and some other things that could happen to B-206 in flight and I know how to avoid those situations..! An engine failure I have no control over, it could happen when I least expect it.

New helicopter designs do not necessarily mean that they are safer in all aspects. Manufacturers do try to make them more economical to operate than the competition so customers will buy them. And boy did EC get the DOCīs wrong on the EC-120, they can say whatever they will about how economical it is but ask any operator in the field who will give you a straight answer and then find out how much it costs to run. There are loads of 120īs for sale now, I wonder why?

But donīt get me wrong, like someone said if you donīt worry to much about engine reliability and perhaps fly all the time over land and non-hostile terrain then the EC-120 is fine for passenger transport for someone who has the funds to run it. There is lotīs of people who donīt really care if it costīs $300 or $500 pr/hr to run.

I like the B206 because it cheap to run which means I make more cash and itīs safer to fly in my area of operations.

Iīm guessing that the original poster has probably gotten tired of reading the bull thatīs been posted but please keep us informed what you end up buying whichever way you decide!

[blade771]

For that kind of money!!

I guess $1m is about Ģ700K, you could of course go for a twin (AS355) wouldn't be brand new of course probably F1 / F2 but you could probably get something reasonable for that kind of money.

[B Sousa]

You can't keep flying a 40 yr old design forever....one has to move on and invest in technology with all its merits

If I was a Playa........I would have bought a 407 when it first came out. Since I have a saying etched in my brain. "Never buy an A model of anything" I waited to see how many of the "Rollers" paid for the ADs that would surely come out, and they did.
Now its a bit better, someone else suffered the problems and its a great purchase......
Same thing flys with the EC-120. Let someone else do the testing and since I see a few more buying the farm recently it is not over yet. Then maybe.
As to purchasing "new" only a proven aircraft and only then if I cannot find a clean machine that someone else has eaten the initial depreciation.

If I had the ability to purchase anyway...........

[BigMike]

Horses for courses I guess. Jetranger if want to do a wide range of work, 120 if you mainly fly pax. 40 year old design vs new one? Who cares. Which one makes the most commercial sense, thats the bottom line. Second-hand L-4 would be much better than either.

TC, I think you will find that the tail-rotor is not an issue in the B III Jet-ranger.
I would consider someone with 1000 hours on type to have a bit of an idea. What do you consider experienced on type? Just remeber its not always total hours on type, but what you did in those hours...

[B Sousa]

tail-rotor is not an issue in the B III Jet-ranger.

Are we talking an LTE issue here?? I have heard this song before. Personal opinion is Pilots are the problem. If any aircraft is prone to doing something out of the ordinary it should be addressed in the intial training and etched in the pilots gray matter. If done correctly problems should not occur OR if Murphy is flying then the pilot will be able to correct things before a disaster occurs based on his awareness in the seat.

Im Still voting for an L-4

[BigMike]

As it was when I first flew a 206 a long while ago. I was warned to be carefull with pre-BIII Jet-rangers. Something to simply be aware of.

[B Sousa]

Something to simply be aware of.

And it appears you have not forgotten, good.. Another good example, if I can drift a bit, was the Huey. Many variations of it but as there are also different UH-60s, the one big difference was that the Huey used two airframes.
UH-1B, C, M etc. had the B204 airframe, wheras the D,H,V etc. had the B205 airframe.
When I transitioned from the H to the M, the first thing the IP did was take me way up in the mountains and do a 360 turn at a 50'OGE hover on a hot day (in a big LZ) Dam thing ran out of pedal. Lesson there was although it was a Huey with an L-13 etc. The tailboom was still smaller and the tail rotor cannot handle things, Hot, Heavy, High........

Back to reality, Im still voting for the L-4.........

[lallosa777]

EC120 - skids!

Could someone tell me what the extra bits at the end of the skids are for on the 120. Don't know whether there are similar on other machines? Thanks!

[on21]

It apparently suffered from Dutch Roll, so this part of the skid is to counteract this tendancy.

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/...ity/Page5.html