Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Bell 429

Old 17th Jan 2012, 17:52
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 606
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
What is that nasty looking hula hoop thing on mercyflight's tail?
Phoinix is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2012, 18:05
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,174
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
The tail rotor is low..... very low.... belly button stuff.... so any operator using the rear loading facility is really obliged to put a pretty substantial guard in place to ensure that the rear loading is safe [ish] for the medical crew.

The police aircraft clearly has less interest in that aspect but an air ambulance operator simply using the side door - as many do - would have a similar lack of need.
PANews is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2012, 02:36
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Global
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PA News - Sorry but you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
BestoftheWest is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2012, 08:23
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,174
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Best of the West

Assuming there is something specific I "do not know what I am talking about" [or maybe all of it] perhaps you will throw in your specific alternate thought lines.

Is it I do not know what the nasty looking hula hoop is or does it go beyond that to the weight issue?

Your full and detailed specific input will be appreciated by many.
PANews is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2012, 19:46
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PANews: Actually you don't know what you are on about with regards to the height of the tail rotor. I have just been and checked the one in our hangar and me standing at 6 feet the bottom of the tail rotor is no where near my belly button. Just at my shoulder maybe and low enough to cause death if you walk in to it? Yes. Near my 'belly button'? No.

I have only about 300 hours flying theses aircraft and I hate to break it to all of you, but it is a great machine - a very, very pilot friendly piece of equipment and I am yet to fly with anyone who gets out of it and states that they think it is a piece of junk. It is interesting to me that so many bash it with no experience in it.

Note the comment from heliRoto: We love the 429. And they are out operating the darn thing every day.
vaqueroaero is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2012, 22:55
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,174
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
What we have to bear in mind is that different customers have different specifications and therefore the height of the skids may vary.

All I can say is that when it first appeared at HAI there was detrimental comment on the height of the rear rotor and I have a picture of a man standing by that early assembly mouth open and pointing.... but I will not use that one as I have another from 2009 where we have men of a selection of heights standing by the rear of the 429 on display.... although the t/r is not at full height it is clear that the tall man is in danger of losing his belly button even if to be precise it may just miss it! I am a bit taller so I may not be so lucky.....

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10932568/Bell429HAI.JPG

My comment was in response to a question about the rotor guard and was fairly accurate.

No one is saying that the 429 is a heap of.... it is not, its a great airframe and [to be precise] I do not recall anyone saying it is rubbish.

This end of the posts on this 429 thread is about the new weights and whether EASA [arguably the main market] are going to play ball with Bell.

Some of us believe they have a struggle on their hands [even if its a superb bit of kit].
PANews is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 02:38
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Global
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PA News - Do you ever say anything nice about any helicopter or do you just bitch about them all.
BestoftheWest is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 09:48
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A technical discussion or talk about certification stuff is not useful feeded by "i like the ship". I like the ship too, but the ship is riding on the upper certification limit 3175kg/7000lbs right from the start and thats the point. May be some operators use the ship overloaded and the ship is doing the job well. No question. But thats not the approach we can have in the "new" Europe with a lot of controlling stuff. We have to demonstrate to the CAA/EASA the ship weight including all needed equipment, enough fuel and the crew.

And for the guys not so familiar with the new coming EU-OPS. They will increase the mandatory fuel reserves for HEMS. Means round about additionally 50kg more for fuel and less for payload on a ship operated on the upper weight limit.
tecpilot is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 10:48
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
Tecpilot,

I'm not sure where your information is coming from but the fuel carriage was alleviated in EASA regulations to provide a more practical implementation.

SPA.HEMS.150 Fuel supply
(a) When the HEMS mission is conducted under VFR within a local and defined geographical area, standard fuel planning can be employed provided the operator establishes final reserve fuel to ensure that, on completion of the mission the fuel remaining is not less than an amount of fuel sufficient for:
(1) 30 minutes of flying time at normal cruising conditions; or

(2) when operating within an area providing continuous and suitable precautionary landing sites, 20 minutes of flying time at normal cruising speed.
Jim
JimL is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 11:34
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Correct, as ever Jim.

At the moment 15min are accepted by several authorities in Europe for VFR DAYLIGHT operations.
tecpilot is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2012, 14:00
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I apologise if a pilot's perspective on a website called Professional Pilots Rumor Network is not deemd as being 'technical' enough.

It is my understanding that the 429 was originally destined to be certified under Part 29. For reasons that I'm not prepared to get into that didn't happen and certification was gained under Part 27. This has indeed led to a machine that is resticted by regulation, not be performance. In fact on certain aircraft if you had the aux fuel tank installed and filled it up you would have a machine with a usefull load of about 260 pounds. No further discussion required there!

TCCA (Transport Canada Civil Aviation) has, as we know, approved an increase of 500 pounds to the max weight, once certain requirements have been met. I think you will now see a steady increase in sales, how many head to Europe remains to be seen. I suspect that many potential European customers are still holding off to see what happens. Indeed Bell may well have a struggle on its hands and they are probably more than prepared for it. It was certainly no picnic dealing with TCCA.

If the FAA and JAA/CAA/EASA (whatever they call themselves now) choose not to follow then so be it. I think they will have to have pretty good reason not to though, but regulations are regulations. That is for the pay grades way above my head to worry about. It will be a shame for the machine, but there is a pretty big world outside of Europe.

There are other certification considerations to be taken in to account, in particular see the post by The Sultan below.

The fact is that there are companies in possesion of the aircraft that are making it work, even with the 7000 pound limit. They operate it IFR and VFR so have to take into account fuel reserves and are more than happy with its performance.(whoops there I go again.......)

With regards to skid height there are no options - it is what it is, no high or low gear.

I have seen the tail rotor guard up close and personal. To be honest it looks pretty aweful. But it isn't about looks. It is about stopping people walking into the tail rotor. (wait until you see one with the weather radar installed!) My main concern would be vibration issues on the attachment points. All I can say though is that the upper echelons of engineering must have done their job and all that has been taken into consideration.
vaqueroaero is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 17:22
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FBO
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fresh air

Thank you vaqueroaero for blowing some much needed fresh air in this thread. Comments from someone who actually operates the AC is refreshing and a nice change from the armchair engineers who are so "knowledgeable".

Flame on gents, I'm immune.

G
Rotor George is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 19:56
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tail Rotor Height?
Bell Publication gives 4ft 6 in as clearance from lowest point to ground.

Bell 429 Product Specifications 3rd Page
Sandy Toad is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 14:38
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 909
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Vaquero, can you tell us what the Empty Weight is on the 429 that you are flying, and if possible what configuration it is in?

EMS, LE, straight pax interior...

So that apples can be more directly related to apples...
tottigol is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 18:54
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Empty weight is 5035 pounds. It is configured with the "deluxe" VIP interior. I saw one the other day which was configured as sparingly as possible and it was around 4700 pounds empty.

On another note in order to go to 7500 pounds you must have 4 things. These are : strobe fitted on the front to scare birds, cockpit voice recorder, HTAWS and a radar altimeter. In our case this will increase our gross weight by about 15 pounds, but then we have to wait for the FAA to get on board in any case. Or not!
vaqueroaero is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 19:43
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 807
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
7000-5035=1965lbs useful load
821L of fuel = 1448lbs
pilot=240lbs
payload=277lbs> 1 pax and a golf bag.

Great.
GoodGrief is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2012, 20:32
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 909
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Any idea of how much a EMS configured 429 weighs empty, I am guessing around 5,500 lbs?
Goodgrief, 1448 lbs seems to be a lot of gas for the 429, perhaps almost 2.5 hrs, so you normally would not need to carry all that with you...Normally.

Last edited by tottigol; 21st Jan 2012 at 21:43.
tottigol is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2012, 11:46
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FAA Denial of Exemption

From Regulations.gov

The FAA has received a number of petitions for exemption to increase the gross weight of specific helicopters to exceed the weight limitation of § 27.1. Typically, the FAA has denied these requests. The FAA has only granted exemptions to § 27.1 in one situation, directly related to rulemaking that increased the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters. In 1995, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) effort to recommend new or revised requirements for increasing the gross weight and passenger limitations for normal category rotorcraft. This ARAC included representatives from the FAA, Joint Aviation Authorities, and TCCA as well as US and European helicopter manufacturers.

This ARAC agreed that a gross weight limitation increase of part 27 to 7,000 pounds was appropriate. This was primarily because the evolution of the rotorcraft design standards (including the implementation of new crash worthiness regulatory requirements intended to improve occupant survivability in the event of a crash) had driven an increase to the gross weight of modem day part 27 helicopters and impacted the entire helicopter community. In conjunction with this increase, the ARAC agreed to certain increased design standards for part 27. Shortly after the ARAC recommendations were accepted by the FAA, but prior to final rulemaking, the FAA granted three exemptions to allow an increase in gross weight to specific helicopters. In all three cases, the FAA imposed all of the newly proposed rules, including the enhanced crashworthiness regulatory requirements.

The only other similar part 27 petition for gross weight increase was received in 2007. After reviewing the reasons for that request, the FAA found the request did not differ materially from previously denied requests. The FAA denied that request without public input because the denial was not precedent setting. Similarly, this petition for exemption does not differ materially from previously denied requests.

The argument made by the petitioner that an increase in gross weight for the Bell 429 is needed to accommodate the installation of safety enhancing equipment is not valid justification. An increase in gross weight for any normal category helicopter would accommodate the installation of additional safety enhancing equipment.

The FAA's Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing and the fact that this petition does not differ materially from other petitions that have been denied in the past, the FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 4470 I, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited for an exemption from 14 CFR § 27.1 is hereby denied.
turboshaft is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2012, 17:06
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I wonder how long it will be before the limit for Part 27 gets raised to something above 7,000 lbs...
Bound to happen eventually.
Shawn Coyle is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2012, 08:02
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,838
Received 51 Likes on 36 Posts
Shawn,

Hard call that one.

But where do you draw the line being the question. They moved once on this one already so it may be a long time for the next one.

The other question is why the 429 could not meet Part 29 in the beginning? I know that the following is an issue -
Both cooling fans are driven by the tail-rotor drive shaft and a single failure will cause loss of function of both. This does not meet the Category A requirements.
How much is already Part 29 compliant as other manufacturers of Part 27 aircraft have done?

I am sure there is pressure from other manufacturers crying "foul" on this one as well.

The part I find weird is the relevance of following to allow an increase to the weight:

(CVR/FDR, HTAWS, Rad.Alt., Dual Autopilot and bird repellent device[forward flashing lights]
CVR/FDR - The CVR probably doesn't make sense in a SP operation i.e. Unless the pilot is mad and talks to himself vocally. The FDR may increase safety in the long term and only after the fact.

(Both of the above are currently only required when more than 10 pax are carried.)

Rad Alt - given

Dual Autopilot - given although an SPIFR Part 27 machine would have one already. Is this to provide redundancy that the single autopilot currently "doesn't" have? i.e. failback to SAS?

Bird repellent device - I would love to see the data on exactly how effective it is. What about the birds that dont have eyes in the back of their heads? A noticeable downside of quieter aircraft i.e. EC 135 is it can be quite discerning as to how much closer you get to birds before they react so maybe hearing is the more relevant sensory function.

To date the increase in weight is taken up by TC (obviously), NZ CAA and Thailand?

Maybe "a cold day in hell" comes to mind?
RVDT is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.