The venerable Bell 47
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/N 6 ????????
Thanks for the replies guys. One question for Darren999:
You reminded me of a question I had about N555EN (47D1 s/n6). How is it that this ship shows up on the FAA registry as s/n 6, when the first Bell 47D1 produced was s/n 145? The FAA shows the mfr. as Bell, and the helicopter is in the normal category, but if there was never a s/n 6, how did this happen?
You reminded me of a question I had about N555EN (47D1 s/n6). How is it that this ship shows up on the FAA registry as s/n 6, when the first Bell 47D1 produced was s/n 145? The FAA shows the mfr. as Bell, and the helicopter is in the normal category, but if there was never a s/n 6, how did this happen?
Ah, 47's. Gotta love 'em! I'm sure everybody would like to claim the "earliest" 47. And maybe some people do have some early examples. But they're authentic in the same way George Washington's "original" axe used to chop down that famous cherry tree is: the handle has been replaced four times and the blade has been replaced twice.
Av8rbpm asks:
The serial numbers are all over the place, and a "D-1" may have started it's life as something else. MSN 6 is listed as a 1947 47D-1, so it was probably a 47B when it came off the assembly line and modified to D-1 status some time thereafter. See, the 47D-1 didn't gain Type Certificate approval until March of 1949. Oddly, MSN 16 is also listed as a D-1, yet it is supposedly a 1946 airframe, a year earlier than MSN 6. Go figure.
It gets more interesting. Curiouser and curiouser, you might say.
There is listed a "straight" Bell 47 (no suffix), MSN 11, which is listed as built in 1947. And there is also a 1947 47B MSN 11, N9241Z on the U.S. registry. Coincidentally, there is also a 1947 47D-1, N157B which is listed as...(drum roll)...MSN 11! Separate aircraft? How many serial number 11's did Bell build in 1947?
Did Bell run all of the early 47 serial numbers for the different models consecutively? Or did they start over a "1" for each new model? The latter is doubtful, since the only differences between a B, a B-3 and a D were cosmetic or operational (spray set up, for instance).
There is a 1947 47D, MSN 5, N147B. And there is also a 1947 47D, MSN 60, N140B. Complicating matters is a 1947 47B, MSN 58, N138B.
Bell must have really been cranking those 47's off the assembly line(s) in 1946 and 47. What with the military orders and all these civilian ships, they must have been running three shifts!
By the way, the MSN 1 47G was, apparently, built in 1959. But there is also a 47D-1, MSN "001" listed as being built in 1961. (Other people besides Bell have built "47's" and this may be the case with MSN 001. Sometimes they show up as "Bell-Shelby" or something like that in the databases, sometimes not.)
Obviously there's been a lot of N-number and serial number switching going on in the 47 world. This is analogous to the classic car market, I suppose, in which cars are purported to be something special (a rare racing Ferrari, say) but are found to be not exactly that when the various serial numbers are matched up.
I personally know of a "47D-1" with a funky but not personalized registration number (not one of the consecutive N-numbers that Bell usually used). There's an "extra" data plate that says that it was modified to D-1 status in 1962. The regular "Bell" data plate says the ship is a D-1, but there is no entry in the "Date Of Manufacture" column, and the whole thing looks hand-stamped. Friends who know about these things are pretty sure it was not a D-1 at birth. The logbooks only go back to a complete rebuild in the 1970's, so God only knows what happened to the ship prior to that. (Maybe it was built up from parts?)
With 47's, authenticity must be very hard to prove. Owners of those early ships must not want to talk about it too much.
Av8rbpm asks:
You reminded me of a question I had about N555EN (47D1 s/n6). How is it that this ship shows up on the FAA registry as s/n 6, when the first Bell 47D1 produced was s/n 145? The FAA shows the mfr. as Bell, and the helicopter is in the normal category, but if there was never a s/n 6, how did this happen?
It gets more interesting. Curiouser and curiouser, you might say.
There is listed a "straight" Bell 47 (no suffix), MSN 11, which is listed as built in 1947. And there is also a 1947 47B MSN 11, N9241Z on the U.S. registry. Coincidentally, there is also a 1947 47D-1, N157B which is listed as...(drum roll)...MSN 11! Separate aircraft? How many serial number 11's did Bell build in 1947?
Did Bell run all of the early 47 serial numbers for the different models consecutively? Or did they start over a "1" for each new model? The latter is doubtful, since the only differences between a B, a B-3 and a D were cosmetic or operational (spray set up, for instance).
There is a 1947 47D, MSN 5, N147B. And there is also a 1947 47D, MSN 60, N140B. Complicating matters is a 1947 47B, MSN 58, N138B.
Bell must have really been cranking those 47's off the assembly line(s) in 1946 and 47. What with the military orders and all these civilian ships, they must have been running three shifts!
By the way, the MSN 1 47G was, apparently, built in 1959. But there is also a 47D-1, MSN "001" listed as being built in 1961. (Other people besides Bell have built "47's" and this may be the case with MSN 001. Sometimes they show up as "Bell-Shelby" or something like that in the databases, sometimes not.)
Obviously there's been a lot of N-number and serial number switching going on in the 47 world. This is analogous to the classic car market, I suppose, in which cars are purported to be something special (a rare racing Ferrari, say) but are found to be not exactly that when the various serial numbers are matched up.
I personally know of a "47D-1" with a funky but not personalized registration number (not one of the consecutive N-numbers that Bell usually used). There's an "extra" data plate that says that it was modified to D-1 status in 1962. The regular "Bell" data plate says the ship is a D-1, but there is no entry in the "Date Of Manufacture" column, and the whole thing looks hand-stamped. Friends who know about these things are pretty sure it was not a D-1 at birth. The logbooks only go back to a complete rebuild in the 1970's, so God only knows what happened to the ship prior to that. (Maybe it was built up from parts?)
With 47's, authenticity must be very hard to prove. Owners of those early ships must not want to talk about it too much.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite on topic, but I just did my first solo today on a B47 - G-BAXS at Fairoaks, and from what limited amount I know, they are an outstanding machine and a huge pleasure to fly. 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: england
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell 47 Conversion
Looking to do a Bell 47 conversion.
Anybody know who is operating them Midlands - Northern england area or further a field if no one local
Thanks
Cyclic
Anybody know who is operating them Midlands - Northern england area or further a field if no one local
Thanks
Cyclic
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a B47 in the TAMS hangar at Sheffield (used to be parked next to me in the hangar at Gamston).
Aero Maintenance at walton Wood look after some (they would know about trainers I guess??)
I think Mike Green from Sandtoft does B47 training (think / uncertain)
Hields Aviation at Sherburn certainly do and have a B47G3B1
Aero Maintenance at walton Wood look after some (they would know about trainers I guess??)
I think Mike Green from Sandtoft does B47 training (think / uncertain)
Hields Aviation at Sherburn certainly do and have a B47G3B1
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bell47
Enjoy your time in the 47. I little higher workload if you have not spent much time in a 300 or a 22 with the gov switched off. The trick is to listen to the engine. Have fun.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cage wheel
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know of any B47 tailboom strikes ?
To all you seasoned gents out there - do you recall in your experience ever having or knowing of a tailboom strike in a B47 ? If yes, what stage of flying did it happen and what was the damage ?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boom strike
I have only heard of boom strikes once the aircarft has touched the ground after and autorotation following an engine failure. People usually hit the ground hard which then inturn causes the blade to felex down then hits the tail boom. The blades do sail quite a bit on a 47, so just something to be aware of. It doesn't seem a common occurance.
Darren
Darren
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Desert Dweller
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen the result of a heavy auto, the blade just nicked the TR drive shaft. Shaft had to be U/S'd but the blade was OK. Another time a mate walked away from a KH4 while it was running down (rabbit ears still down) in a strong wind and watched the blade sail down and cut the tail off.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail damage
I was once visiting a training school in Tehran back in the 70's and watched one of the solo students wack his G2 into the ground after some erratic hovering - when he returned and we inspected the aircraft we found one leg of the yolk casting that holds the tail-tube at the end of the boom was cracked right through!!
G
G
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chamonix
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive known of 3-4 occurences. All as detailed above.
Heavy landings by students, during engine off landing training (of course, one could argue the instructors intervention was too late but thats a small glasshouse to throw stones in!!).
Only once did the blades actually sever the tailboom itself. On all other occasions the blades flexed enough to strike the aft short shaft of the tail rotor drive. As the aircraft were already on the ground there was no loss of directional control.
Heavy landings by students, during engine off landing training (of course, one could argue the instructors intervention was too late but thats a small glasshouse to throw stones in!!).
Only once did the blades actually sever the tailboom itself. On all other occasions the blades flexed enough to strike the aft short shaft of the tail rotor drive. As the aircraft were already on the ground there was no loss of directional control.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a training school in the 80's, one B47 G2 cut the T/R drive shaft with the blades due to a heavy EOL. The instructor thought they had got away with it and was winding up the rotors again when he had an R/T call from a colleague to say "The T/R's not going round - is this normal??"
On another occasion, late intervention by the instructor during an EOL and the T/R struck the ground during the flare. T/R and its gearbox separated from the tailboom. The skids were still a metre or two off the ground at this stage and the five or so "landings" were quite interesting. A/C written off but instructor and student unharmed.
On another occasion, late intervention by the instructor during an EOL and the T/R struck the ground during the flare. T/R and its gearbox separated from the tailboom. The skids were still a metre or two off the ground at this stage and the five or so "landings" were quite interesting. A/C written off but instructor and student unharmed.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North America
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a Soloy 47 with a heavy pilot and heavy passenger. The forward CG and downwind landing didn't work well together.
MIA99LA133On April 19, 1999, about 0730 central daylight time, a Bell 47-G3B, N32PH, registered to Provine Helicopter Service, Inc., operating as a 14 CFR Part 137 aerial application flight, crashed while attempting a liftoff from a truck mounted platform near Thomastown, Mississippi. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The helicopter sustained substantial damage and the commercially-rated pilot and a passenger reported no injuries. The flight originated about 30 minutes before the accident.
The pilot stated he departed with the land owner for an orientation flight over the tract to be sprayed. Upon completion of the orientation flight, he returned to the "nurse truck" and made an approach to deplane the land owner. He was not content with his landing skid placement on the platform and pulled up for a second approach, when the helicopter started an uncommanded yaw, followed by an uncontrolled rotation. He stated he thought the passenger had stepped on the right anti-torque pedal. He maneuvered the helicopter away from the truck, but the main rotor blades collided with a small tree, the right landing skid hit the terrain hard enough to collapse, and the aircraft came to rest on its right side.
According to the two-man ground crew, as the helicopter was lifting off the platform for better positioning on the platform, they heard a "loud bang similar to a shotgun blast". They saw a piece of the aircraft fly away and the tail rotor stopped turning. The helicopter performed multiple rotations, tilted toward its right side, and impacted a stand of small trees with its main rotor blades. The helicopter came to rest on its right side within the trees.
Subsequent examination of the accident site and interview of the pilot, ground crew, and land owner by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors, revealed that the pilot was making a downwind approach to the platform in order to position the passenger near the ladder to expedite his exit off the platform. The wreckage revealed the throttle was fully open and the right anti-torque pedal was full forward. A 16-inch section of tail rotor drive shaft located in the plane of the main rotor tips was missing and the tail boom truss had sustained a main rotor blade strike. One of the main rotor blade tips (outer 4-6 inches) had witness marks that would be consistent with striking the tail rotor shaft. Except for the aforementioned, the inspectors could find no mechanical malfunctions of the pilot's flight or engine controls, the engine or its components, or the transmission or drive train to the main or tail rotor systems. The FAA operations inspector stated, "It appears that the pilot through cyclic and collective control input caused the rotor blades to make contact with the tailboom and tailrotor drive shaft".
MIA99LA133On April 19, 1999, about 0730 central daylight time, a Bell 47-G3B, N32PH, registered to Provine Helicopter Service, Inc., operating as a 14 CFR Part 137 aerial application flight, crashed while attempting a liftoff from a truck mounted platform near Thomastown, Mississippi. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The helicopter sustained substantial damage and the commercially-rated pilot and a passenger reported no injuries. The flight originated about 30 minutes before the accident.
The pilot stated he departed with the land owner for an orientation flight over the tract to be sprayed. Upon completion of the orientation flight, he returned to the "nurse truck" and made an approach to deplane the land owner. He was not content with his landing skid placement on the platform and pulled up for a second approach, when the helicopter started an uncommanded yaw, followed by an uncontrolled rotation. He stated he thought the passenger had stepped on the right anti-torque pedal. He maneuvered the helicopter away from the truck, but the main rotor blades collided with a small tree, the right landing skid hit the terrain hard enough to collapse, and the aircraft came to rest on its right side.
According to the two-man ground crew, as the helicopter was lifting off the platform for better positioning on the platform, they heard a "loud bang similar to a shotgun blast". They saw a piece of the aircraft fly away and the tail rotor stopped turning. The helicopter performed multiple rotations, tilted toward its right side, and impacted a stand of small trees with its main rotor blades. The helicopter came to rest on its right side within the trees.
Subsequent examination of the accident site and interview of the pilot, ground crew, and land owner by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors, revealed that the pilot was making a downwind approach to the platform in order to position the passenger near the ladder to expedite his exit off the platform. The wreckage revealed the throttle was fully open and the right anti-torque pedal was full forward. A 16-inch section of tail rotor drive shaft located in the plane of the main rotor tips was missing and the tail boom truss had sustained a main rotor blade strike. One of the main rotor blade tips (outer 4-6 inches) had witness marks that would be consistent with striking the tail rotor shaft. Except for the aforementioned, the inspectors could find no mechanical malfunctions of the pilot's flight or engine controls, the engine or its components, or the transmission or drive train to the main or tail rotor systems. The FAA operations inspector stated, "It appears that the pilot through cyclic and collective control input caused the rotor blades to make contact with the tailboom and tailrotor drive shaft".
A pretty large percentage of 47's I've seen that were used for ag work had tailboom strikes at some point - the usual story was an autorotation to a soft field with some groundspeed & the pilot using a bunch of aft cyclic after touchdown. 99% of the time the maintenance logs would never show any trace of the incident or repairs though...