Bell 429
Hueydog,
It is pretty clear that the aircraft has a weight problem and Bell do not deny it.
That a so called JAR 27 airframe comes into the arena weighing so over the JAR 27 specs that we here are asking questions as to whether it is not actually a JAR 29 - that sort of underlines the problem Bell face.
One potential UK customer for multiple units has stood on the touchline waiting .... and waiting .... for the 429 to meet its JAR27 specification weights since they placed orders for it years ago.
Now that customer has given up and bought an airframe that does what it says on the label.
It is pretty clear that the aircraft has a weight problem and Bell do not deny it.
That a so called JAR 27 airframe comes into the arena weighing so over the JAR 27 specs that we here are asking questions as to whether it is not actually a JAR 29 - that sort of underlines the problem Bell face.
One potential UK customer for multiple units has stood on the touchline waiting .... and waiting .... for the 429 to meet its JAR27 specification weights since they placed orders for it years ago.
Now that customer has given up and bought an airframe that does what it says on the label.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Middle East
Age: 69
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PNNews, hello, when you say, "That a so called JAR 27 airframe comes into the arena weighing so over the JAR 27 specs that we here are asking..." has very little to do with the point of my post. I was questioning a statement about noise issues that I and others have not found to be the case.
When I said "I never felt that it had a weight problem before, but extra weight allowance is always welcome", it is my personal opinion. You may have a different opinion about whether it has a weight problem or whether the additional 500 pounds is a welcome, that is certainly your prerogative and you are welcome to it. I find the extra 500 pounds a positive step whether Bell had that in mind when they first designed the aircraft or not.
When I said "I never felt that it had a weight problem before, but extra weight allowance is always welcome", it is my personal opinion. You may have a different opinion about whether it has a weight problem or whether the additional 500 pounds is a welcome, that is certainly your prerogative and you are welcome to it. I find the extra 500 pounds a positive step whether Bell had that in mind when they first designed the aircraft or not.
Last edited by HueyDog; 14th Jan 2012 at 08:25.
The 429 is to heavy with an useful operation weight for an a/c certified under part 27, shame on the Bell development branch. Poor development control. The payload ratio between Crew weight, special equipment and fuel is to bad. On the other side the ship in actual state isn't ready to fulfill the part 29 requirements. A great problem. If the FAA/EASA will not follow the "petition" the 429 don't have a good outlook. Very few operators are ready to invest in a helicopter right from the start limited by the 3175kg and without much perspective to further improvements and additional equipment in the coming years. In the last year some HEMS operators skipped the 429 out of such reasons and opted for other products. Now Bell is becoming really nervous.
They have made a great helicopter, but trapped in the certification.
They have made a great helicopter, but trapped in the certification.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
tecpilot:
What part of Part 29 requirements does the 429 not meet? It's got Category A performance, all of which comes from Part 29, and which drives the redundancy aspects of a lot of systems.
Is there something else that's important in part 29 that was missed?
Remember Part 27 used to be limited to 6,000 pounds, and is now up to 7,000 pounds. The weight aspect is an arbitrary limit - the important one in my mind is the number of seats - this drives the difference between 'normal' and 'transport' in terms of safety for the flying public.
And if you want to see the comparison in the FW world - 'normal' category there goes to 12,500 pounds, except for commuter class airplanes that can be up to 19,000 pounds.
And if the difference between Part 27 and Part 29 is so important for the FAA, why do they not require type ratings for Part 29 helicopters below 12,500 pounds?
What part of Part 29 requirements does the 429 not meet? It's got Category A performance, all of which comes from Part 29, and which drives the redundancy aspects of a lot of systems.
Is there something else that's important in part 29 that was missed?
Remember Part 27 used to be limited to 6,000 pounds, and is now up to 7,000 pounds. The weight aspect is an arbitrary limit - the important one in my mind is the number of seats - this drives the difference between 'normal' and 'transport' in terms of safety for the flying public.
And if you want to see the comparison in the FW world - 'normal' category there goes to 12,500 pounds, except for commuter class airplanes that can be up to 19,000 pounds.
And if the difference between Part 27 and Part 29 is so important for the FAA, why do they not require type ratings for Part 29 helicopters below 12,500 pounds?
Turkish National Police picks Bell 429
Well just decided to check the web and lo and behold, the 429 2nd parapublic customer in Europe (first being Alfa Helicopter CZ) to choose this for an order of 15 x airframes with options for another 5.
Last edited by chopper2004; 15th Jan 2012 at 13:51.
I wonder if the Category A performance of the 429 is attainable at 7500lbs.
The MGW increase is a signal from Bell that normal operations of some types (EMS and offshore typical) shall take place at above 7000lbs to start, just to achieve a reasonable payload.
The MGW increase is a signal from Bell that normal operations of some types (EMS and offshore typical) shall take place at above 7000lbs to start, just to achieve a reasonable payload.
I got to test fly one last spring. At 1000' ASL we could hover OGE at a near gross weight with OEI. The other hamster was in the 2.5 minute limit range but it could do it. When we rolled an engine off while at about 50 kts we could still climb at 1400'/minute. I thought it performed pretty well regardless of the paper.
Shawn, if there is no problem to certify the 429 in part 29 i don't understand why Bell certified the ship in part 27? Certified in part 29 and the ship is open for all future developments and weights.
As you know there are some requirements in Part 29 different from part 27. In part 29 you have to demonstrate a bird proof windshield as one small example different to 27.
As you know there are some requirements in Part 29 different from part 27. In part 29 you have to demonstrate a bird proof windshield as one small example different to 27.
Tecpilot you're right,
Bird proofness
(not just windshield) is one of the hurdles on Part 29. Some improvements are easy to acheive through minor redesigns, others are show stoppers. Exemptions are good 
Bird proofness
(not just windshield) is one of the hurdles on Part 29. Some improvements are easy to acheive through minor redesigns, others are show stoppers. Exemptions are good
Exemptions
The 429 is designed to the latest flaw tolerance requirements, its transmission was demonstrated with loss of oil flow for well beyond 30 minutes, and Transport Canada, when considering this, noted all of the exemptions given to the EC-145 to allow it to be "certified" Part 29.
As to bird strike did I not read in this forum that the S-76 with the hawk strike was brought down not by a windshield problem, but a major structural failure?
Note to JohnDixson: You do not want to race a 429 (or even a 412) to shore after loss of lube to the transmission if you are in a S-92 (unless you are closer than 12 minutes out).
The Sultan
As to bird strike did I not read in this forum that the S-76 with the hawk strike was brought down not by a windshield problem, but a major structural failure?
Note to JohnDixson: You do not want to race a 429 (or even a 412) to shore after loss of lube to the transmission if you are in a S-92 (unless you are closer than 12 minutes out).
The Sultan
"Transport Canada, when considering this, noted all of the exemptions given to the EC-145 to allow it to be "certified" Part 29."
It may be annoying that the EC145 [aka BK117C-2] was given exemptions to achieve [near] Part 29 status but it is after all a legacy airframe and there are plenty of those in every manufacturers catalogue. Many have been upgraded in the spirit of the requirements of JAR but most still retain an Achilles heel flaw [or three] somewhere that can kill.
As Bell and MD [427 and 900] found to their cost in the mid-1990s new airframes seeking to meet the requirements of 27 and 29 do not have the luxury of getting to the finishing line by the use of dispensations. If you do not read and follow the instructions the European certification authorities do not take prisoners.
The result was - back to the drawing board for Bell, the 429, and a major revision for McDonnell Douglas to produce the 902.
I do hope that what we are seeing is not another failure by Bell to read the requirement of the JAR specifications?
Does anyone have an opinion on where the 429 might not meet JAR29 if EASA require adherence to the set weight limits?
It may be annoying that the EC145 [aka BK117C-2] was given exemptions to achieve [near] Part 29 status but it is after all a legacy airframe and there are plenty of those in every manufacturers catalogue. Many have been upgraded in the spirit of the requirements of JAR but most still retain an Achilles heel flaw [or three] somewhere that can kill.
As Bell and MD [427 and 900] found to their cost in the mid-1990s new airframes seeking to meet the requirements of 27 and 29 do not have the luxury of getting to the finishing line by the use of dispensations. If you do not read and follow the instructions the European certification authorities do not take prisoners.
The result was - back to the drawing board for Bell, the 429, and a major revision for McDonnell Douglas to produce the 902.
I do hope that what we are seeing is not another failure by Bell to read the requirement of the JAR specifications?
Does anyone have an opinion on where the 429 might not meet JAR29 if EASA require adherence to the set weight limits?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of the 429
http://verticalmag.com/images/wallpa...1_039_1280.jpg
Hope the Vertical link is ok. That picture was taken over the Sawtooth Mountains near Stanley Idaho.
St Luke's Regional Medical Center has contracted two 429s since September 2011. One in Boise and one in Twin Falls Idaho
HEMS equiped. NVG, TCAS, EGPWS, GNS 530 430, SAT WX, radar ALT.
Without a lot of discussion, We LOVE the 429!!!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANEWS
The question isn't whether the 429 is actually a JAR 29 because it isn't. The question should be, as Shawn Coyle points out, why the limit at 7000lbs for JAR 27? What advantage/disadvantage in safety is delineated at 7000 lbs? Shouldn't passenger count be the driving factor to determine 27/29 airframes? While this may provide an opportunity to poke Bell in the eye have you asked yourself what advantages opening up the 27 limit to 7500 or even 8000 lbs might provide us as a community in improved aircraft and performance capabilities? Perhaps that's the real story here, why the authorities are so hard over on 7000 lbs for helicopters but are willing to have a wide range of weights for similar fixed wing. Maybe it's time the regs change to catch up with the fixed wing world?
That a so called JAR 27 airframe comes into the arena weighing so over the JAR 27 specs that we here are asking questions as to whether it is not actually a JAR 29 - that sort of underlines the problem Bell face.
The question isn't whether the 429 is actually a JAR 29 because it isn't. The question should be, as Shawn Coyle points out, why the limit at 7000lbs for JAR 27? What advantage/disadvantage in safety is delineated at 7000 lbs? Shouldn't passenger count be the driving factor to determine 27/29 airframes? While this may provide an opportunity to poke Bell in the eye have you asked yourself what advantages opening up the 27 limit to 7500 or even 8000 lbs might provide us as a community in improved aircraft and performance capabilities? Perhaps that's the real story here, why the authorities are so hard over on 7000 lbs for helicopters but are willing to have a wide range of weights for similar fixed wing. Maybe it's time the regs change to catch up with the fixed wing world?
Our regs are dominated by a personal crusade by a (now deceased) CASA FOI who decided that helicopters should be Transport Class A at half the fixed wing limit of 5700kg. Yes, 2750kg/6,050lbs is the weight that Australian helicopters become liable for maintenance at "Airline" standards, plus endorsements are dictated by the same weight. A BK117 requires 10 hours training plus another 20 (?) hours ICUS before charter ops, whereas an A109 (on grandfather rights when it was only 2600kg) needs only 5 hours and 10 ICUS. Yet which is the more complex aircraft
Sure the 3175kg limit is open for discussions. But i think it's the wrong way at first to design an a/c and to discuss the EASA/FAA weight limits on a second stage due to weight problems of the ship.
The different BK117 versions including EC 145 (BK117 C2 by certification) and in future the brand new EC145 T2 are riding on many points on the old grandfather certification of the BK 117 A. EC have only to certify the new parts. Thats a big difference while certification to a fully new designed ship like the MD900 and it's not an unimportant point why EC goes along this way.
The different BK117 versions including EC 145 (BK117 C2 by certification) and in future the brand new EC145 T2 are riding on many points on the old grandfather certification of the BK 117 A. EC have only to certify the new parts. Thats a big difference while certification to a fully new designed ship like the MD900 and it's not an unimportant point why EC goes along this way.
I am unsure how you could run a certification system reliant upon seating capacity - on that basis a Sikorsky Skycrane and the K-Max become instant contenders for JAR27!
There had to be a limit set somewhere and it is clear that there is scope for weight creep just as it has been in the past with the main JAR27 airframes now up to 3,000kg. The problem here, as stated by tecpilot, is the timing and the margin.
Meanwhile the customers are apparently staying away.
The 429 should be selling like hot cakes it has a whole heap going for it, flies beautifully etc etc but its just plain heavy and it looks as if unable to take the ship down by weight reductions Bell are crossing their fingers and hoping they can smash way up through the [glass?] ceiling.
That is a risky strategy no matter how you look at it.
There had to be a limit set somewhere and it is clear that there is scope for weight creep just as it has been in the past with the main JAR27 airframes now up to 3,000kg. The problem here, as stated by tecpilot, is the timing and the margin.
Meanwhile the customers are apparently staying away.
The 429 should be selling like hot cakes it has a whole heap going for it, flies beautifully etc etc but its just plain heavy and it looks as if unable to take the ship down by weight reductions Bell are crossing their fingers and hoping they can smash way up through the [glass?] ceiling.
That is a risky strategy no matter how you look at it.