The venerable Bell 47
Want to fly a brand-new Bell 47 fresh off the production line? My spies tell me that you may very well get your chance in the near future.
Everything old is new again.
Everything old is new again.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Norwich, CT USA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hyd. Off in a Bell 47G3b-1 is not bad, I had an engine failure in one some years back. I was hover taxiing at the time. So I was real close to the ground. I didn't recall much feed back guess there was still some pressure in the system. Now what this about the 47 may go back in production? Boy it would be somthing, the machine really has no replacement for the niche jobs it dose and dose well. It was the first FAA certified helicopter, Bell got it certified in 1947 and called it the 47. Almost 60 years ago. One of the reasons I don't have a 47 anymore, I owned a G3b-1 is that parts became both hard to come by and very expensive. My costs got out of control, insurance didn't help much either. But the view, it was worth it.
I have not been sworn to secrecy about this- and I have heard it from two different (and reliable sources). But I feel as if I'd be betraying a number of confidences if I give all the details this prematurely. But let us consider a couple of things:
1. While Bell's legal department wishes the 47 would just go away, there are many within the company who still love the 47 and don't want to see it die.
2. There are many within the helicopter industry who love the 47 and wish it were in production again.
A deal is supposedly (not "supposably") in the works. Nothing is certain. But the fact that there is even a "deal in the works" is astounding. The bad news is- it may very well fall through. The good news is that there is at least a possibility that we'll see a version of the 47 back in production. The bad news is that even if the deal was signed tomorrow, it would take a long time before the production line was up and running. (I could tell you how many of the first production run are committed already to buyers IF the line gets restarted, but I'd have to kill you.)
Mark my words, Bell will NEVER just sell the T.C. to any old buyer, then send them off with tractor-trailer loads of tooling and parts and a hearty "Good luck with our legacy!" But we shall see.
Now for a bit of speculatin' on the part of the #1 PPRUNE FAN: Everyone wants the classic "goldfish bowl" 47 (D through G-series) to come back. PF#1 would suggest a "better" idea would to bring back the 47H-1. The what? They only made about 38 of this model, s you're forgiven if it's unfamiliar. Kind of looks like a 47J, but with a three-across cabin and, get this, a baggage compartment! Take that, R-22. Of course, the H-model only was produced with the Franklin engine, so an updated drivetrain would have to be bolted in, but how hard would that be?
Ah, but I'm getting dreamy on ya. Speaking of dreaming...
Ironically, I did get to fly a 47 recently. Had not been in one in...ohh...twenty-five years, literally. Had to get in this one and start it and fly it as if I knew what I was doing. And you know what? It all came back, and it was a BLAST! I'd forgotten how much fun they are to fly, sloooooow, sloppy cyclic and all. The current owner has this one up for sale. Almost makes me wish...nah, better just stop that. I could afford it but I'd have a hard time justifying it. And believe me, I've already been down that route a time or two.
But I digress. Anyway 47 fans, keep your fingers and toes crossed. And remember, you heard it here first.
1. While Bell's legal department wishes the 47 would just go away, there are many within the company who still love the 47 and don't want to see it die.
2. There are many within the helicopter industry who love the 47 and wish it were in production again.
A deal is supposedly (not "supposably") in the works. Nothing is certain. But the fact that there is even a "deal in the works" is astounding. The bad news is- it may very well fall through. The good news is that there is at least a possibility that we'll see a version of the 47 back in production. The bad news is that even if the deal was signed tomorrow, it would take a long time before the production line was up and running. (I could tell you how many of the first production run are committed already to buyers IF the line gets restarted, but I'd have to kill you.)
Mark my words, Bell will NEVER just sell the T.C. to any old buyer, then send them off with tractor-trailer loads of tooling and parts and a hearty "Good luck with our legacy!" But we shall see.
Now for a bit of speculatin' on the part of the #1 PPRUNE FAN: Everyone wants the classic "goldfish bowl" 47 (D through G-series) to come back. PF#1 would suggest a "better" idea would to bring back the 47H-1. The what? They only made about 38 of this model, s you're forgiven if it's unfamiliar. Kind of looks like a 47J, but with a three-across cabin and, get this, a baggage compartment! Take that, R-22. Of course, the H-model only was produced with the Franklin engine, so an updated drivetrain would have to be bolted in, but how hard would that be?
Ah, but I'm getting dreamy on ya. Speaking of dreaming...
Ironically, I did get to fly a 47 recently. Had not been in one in...ohh...twenty-five years, literally. Had to get in this one and start it and fly it as if I knew what I was doing. And you know what? It all came back, and it was a BLAST! I'd forgotten how much fun they are to fly, sloooooow, sloppy cyclic and all. The current owner has this one up for sale. Almost makes me wish...nah, better just stop that. I could afford it but I'd have a hard time justifying it. And believe me, I've already been down that route a time or two.
But I digress. Anyway 47 fans, keep your fingers and toes crossed. And remember, you heard it here first.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought , and I know that I should not think, is the 3B1 had two choices of transmissions the 600 series or the 900 series. the 600 has the standard engine driven pump and the 900 has the transmission mounted pump. That is why the 900 series are so popular on Soloy conversions etc, so check and make sure that you know which model you are flying.
I have to check out my flight manual and I will come with the specs if you like.
I was 40 nm from home in a KH-4 and the pump spline sheared. apart from a sore arm it was not so bad.
I have to check out my flight manual and I will come with the specs if you like.
I was 40 nm from home in a KH-4 and the pump spline sheared. apart from a sore arm it was not so bad.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be more thrilled than most if these rumours were true, but I just can't see it happening.
One of the senior product managers at Bell, Canada told me that a remanufactured new 47 would have to cost in excess of $500k/Ł300k. There are just so many more parts than on contemporary machines.
There would not be the income stream for Bell from parts to help justify the re-start as there are so many established suppliers of PMA parts for the commonly needed (profitable) items.
I also understand that all the moulds for castings (as opposed to machined parts) were destroyed and that the cost of re-tooling for these is the greatest problem.
Bell are doing a great job of continuing to support the 47 and have committed a considerable sum to making sure the existing stock stays flying. But any re-start would have to be with a design that was considerably modified if there is any chance of reaching the right price point. That needs to be no more than Raven II money and I think unachievable.
You have to appreciate that brilliant as this machine was (and mine is) its large number of lifed components, along with a 1200 overhaul, were the result of designers and regulators simply not knowing the true life in the early days. As confidence and expertise grow in the time of the early 206, the number of lifed components fell dramatically.
To change this you would have to re-certify a whole new design and that means you would not waste the opportunity to change that design substantially at the same time. You'd omit the stab bar, have a panel screen instead of a costly bubble (yes, I know it then wouldn't be a 47...), no hydraulics, etc. i.e. you might as well start again.
I love my 43 yr old ship (the best, I reckon in the UK). There are only 18 on the register now in the UK and five of those don't appear to be flying. She's a brilliant classic and unbeatable as a private machine. But I can't see any profit for Bell in starting production again.
But, I'd love to be proved wrong.......
One of the senior product managers at Bell, Canada told me that a remanufactured new 47 would have to cost in excess of $500k/Ł300k. There are just so many more parts than on contemporary machines.
There would not be the income stream for Bell from parts to help justify the re-start as there are so many established suppliers of PMA parts for the commonly needed (profitable) items.
I also understand that all the moulds for castings (as opposed to machined parts) were destroyed and that the cost of re-tooling for these is the greatest problem.
Bell are doing a great job of continuing to support the 47 and have committed a considerable sum to making sure the existing stock stays flying. But any re-start would have to be with a design that was considerably modified if there is any chance of reaching the right price point. That needs to be no more than Raven II money and I think unachievable.
You have to appreciate that brilliant as this machine was (and mine is) its large number of lifed components, along with a 1200 overhaul, were the result of designers and regulators simply not knowing the true life in the early days. As confidence and expertise grow in the time of the early 206, the number of lifed components fell dramatically.
To change this you would have to re-certify a whole new design and that means you would not waste the opportunity to change that design substantially at the same time. You'd omit the stab bar, have a panel screen instead of a costly bubble (yes, I know it then wouldn't be a 47...), no hydraulics, etc. i.e. you might as well start again.
I love my 43 yr old ship (the best, I reckon in the UK). There are only 18 on the register now in the UK and five of those don't appear to be flying. She's a brilliant classic and unbeatable as a private machine. But I can't see any profit for Bell in starting production again.
But, I'd love to be proved wrong.......
B47- what if it weren't Bell restarting the line? Sure, if Bell were going to do it, a "simple" 47 could cost as much as a 206. So it cannot be Bell. But what if it was another company...perhaps in a location that could take advantage of lower labor and material costs? I have heard that most of the major issues have been solved (including the engine, which is simply astounding).
The biggest question will be: How many orders will it take to restart the line; and then how many ships per year must you sell to keep it going? My feeling is that Bell will not do this deal for a singlular ten- or twenty-ship run. You can be sure that numbers are being crunched heavily as we speak.
Total purchase price is probably not a huge issue; you can get financing for anything these days. Direct operating cost will be the determining factor in whether the 47 can compete with the R-44 as a trainer (given Frank's reported preference for phasing out the R-22 and using the 4-seater for primary).
In the helicopter industry in general, the 47 is perceived as a "real" helicopter while the R-22 is looked at as a "training" helicopter (and not even that, according to Frank's original intent). Will the numbers work? Will the reintroduction of the 47 signal a switch by flight schools *back* to it and away from the R-22? Holy cow, what's next, a reintroduction of the Hiller 12C? The Sikorsky S-51?
Stay tuned!
The biggest question will be: How many orders will it take to restart the line; and then how many ships per year must you sell to keep it going? My feeling is that Bell will not do this deal for a singlular ten- or twenty-ship run. You can be sure that numbers are being crunched heavily as we speak.
Total purchase price is probably not a huge issue; you can get financing for anything these days. Direct operating cost will be the determining factor in whether the 47 can compete with the R-44 as a trainer (given Frank's reported preference for phasing out the R-22 and using the 4-seater for primary).
In the helicopter industry in general, the 47 is perceived as a "real" helicopter while the R-22 is looked at as a "training" helicopter (and not even that, according to Frank's original intent). Will the numbers work? Will the reintroduction of the 47 signal a switch by flight schools *back* to it and away from the R-22? Holy cow, what's next, a reintroduction of the Hiller 12C? The Sikorsky S-51?
Stay tuned!
Holy cow, what's next, a reintroduction of the Hiller 12C?
Although you should probably double check the fuel gauges (allegedly)...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPF1
You suggest that thedominant cost of helicopter manufacture is labour and materials. It isn't.
It's certification and the cost of the controls and systems needed for this.
Take the engine basket for a B47 as an example. A few pieces of welded tube that, if it was for as truck, could be made for $300. This part costs over $16,000 from Bell!
I take your point that this could cost less from a manufacturer prepared to take lower margins than Bell, but building helicopters in low labour cost areas of the world is not like building VWs in South America.
If you want the new machine to fly in the U.S., U.K. and Australia for example, the costs of certification will be the same as they always have been = no significant saving.
Your infamous for your wind ups
so you'll have to give us a bit more info if we're going to take this seriously!
You suggest that thedominant cost of helicopter manufacture is labour and materials. It isn't.
It's certification and the cost of the controls and systems needed for this.
Take the engine basket for a B47 as an example. A few pieces of welded tube that, if it was for as truck, could be made for $300. This part costs over $16,000 from Bell!
I take your point that this could cost less from a manufacturer prepared to take lower margins than Bell, but building helicopters in low labour cost areas of the world is not like building VWs in South America.
If you want the new machine to fly in the U.S., U.K. and Australia for example, the costs of certification will be the same as they always have been = no significant saving.
Your infamous for your wind ups
so you'll have to give us a bit more info if we're going to take this seriously!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote B47 “I love my 43 yr old ship (the best, I reckon in the UK).”
Of course, everbodys own ship ist the best. In this case the best, I reckon in CH.
Built May 1966, owner since 1998.
Quote B47 “But I can't see any profit for Bell in starting production again.”
However, one possibility for me is for sale all rights and stock etc. to another “Start-up company” for rebuilt.
Of course, everbodys own ship ist the best. In this case the best, I reckon in CH.
Built May 1966, owner since 1998.
Quote B47 “But I can't see any profit for Bell in starting production again.”
However, one possibility for me is for sale all rights and stock etc. to another “Start-up company” for rebuilt.
B47:
Hey B47 you can just kiss my a**, mm-kay? I don't *have* to give you anything. What I am telling you is that I have heard from two separate and fairly reliable sources that there is a deal in the works to return the 47 to new production...that in an unprecedented move, Bell is considering selling the T.C. if certain qualifications can be met...that there is already a committment for a dozen or so new ships...and that most of the technical problems with the Bill of Materials have already been solved.
I'm not sure where your expertise in helicopter production comes from. You may very well know more than me. But if a company bought a Type Certificate for a helicopter and the production tooling and spare parts inventory to make that certificated helicopter, certification would not be much of an issue. They really don't even need a Production Certificate (Mooney Aircraft did not have a P.C. for years and years, and only recently obtained one). It is well-known that Bell charges dearly for their parts. Sometimes illogically so. This does not necessarily mean that those are the prices that *must* be charged. It merely means that those are the prices that Bell feels it can get away with.
But hey- believe what you want. Personally, I take everything I read on the internet (and in newspapers for that matter, and certainly everything I might happen to catch on Fox News while surfing right past it) with a huge grain of salt. (Speaking of Fox News, is that dead Aruba girl's mom a full-time correspondent or anchor for Fox now? I see her on the air virtually EVERY time I pass the channel.)
Your infamous for your wind ups so you'll have to give us a bit more info if we're going to take this seriously!
I'm not sure where your expertise in helicopter production comes from. You may very well know more than me. But if a company bought a Type Certificate for a helicopter and the production tooling and spare parts inventory to make that certificated helicopter, certification would not be much of an issue. They really don't even need a Production Certificate (Mooney Aircraft did not have a P.C. for years and years, and only recently obtained one). It is well-known that Bell charges dearly for their parts. Sometimes illogically so. This does not necessarily mean that those are the prices that *must* be charged. It merely means that those are the prices that Bell feels it can get away with.
But hey- believe what you want. Personally, I take everything I read on the internet (and in newspapers for that matter, and certainly everything I might happen to catch on Fox News while surfing right past it) with a huge grain of salt. (Speaking of Fox News, is that dead Aruba girl's mom a full-time correspondent or anchor for Fox now? I see her on the air virtually EVERY time I pass the channel.)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the first Bell 47 D?
Does anyone know what ever happened to Bell 47 D (not D1) s/n 1? My theory is that it is rusting in a pile. Would be a shame not to have this preserved somewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be at Buffalo Niagara International Airport. There's a "D" model hanging in the terminal and it may be that one. It's been a while since I've been there so I'm not sure.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/N 5
I just did some research, and the a/c in Niagara has been moved from the terminal into the Niagara Aerospace Museum. It is actually s/n 5. Looks like the museum is a nice place.
http://niagaramuseum.org/
Thanks for trying!
http://niagaramuseum.org/
Thanks for trying!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that there is a Bell 47D at the museum of bush flying in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada. It was being restored in 1980'ish. Sorry but I dont know the serial number.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
i did some flying years ago here in australia in a d model, franklin powered.
it was a very early model with a splittable bubble, you could take the top part off and fly with the wind in your hair, i was told that it was the earliest machine still flying.
the owner donated it to the smithsonian if i remember rightly.
it was a very early model with a splittable bubble, you could take the top part off and fly with the wind in your hair, i was told that it was the earliest machine still flying.
the owner donated it to the smithsonian if i remember rightly.