Bell 210
As I thought....now the better question....change every thing but good rivets?
Why can someone not use the Bell inspection manual with all the tolerance criteria....go through an old HUEY, do the mods, etc....buy an engine if need be or do the same to the engine....install such parts as needed....and have the equivalent of the 210 and put it on the "Standard" catagory?
I still miss the point of how Bell can take an old airframe and so something a good overhaul shop cannot beyond maybe having jigs left over from the Bell 205 line. It is my understanding the jigs from the UH-1 line would be government property having been purchased by the government as part of the tooling contract for the UH-1. Or...am I missing something here?
Why can someone not use the Bell inspection manual with all the tolerance criteria....go through an old HUEY, do the mods, etc....buy an engine if need be or do the same to the engine....install such parts as needed....and have the equivalent of the 210 and put it on the "Standard" catagory?
I still miss the point of how Bell can take an old airframe and so something a good overhaul shop cannot beyond maybe having jigs left over from the Bell 205 line. It is my understanding the jigs from the UH-1 line would be government property having been purchased by the government as part of the tooling contract for the UH-1. Or...am I missing something here?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I see what is going on, the issue is NOT overhauling and making it zero time. The Bell 210 is a NEW type certificate, and as such, gets grabbed by the new FAR's that basically eliminate "Grandfathering" a design. That means when you re-do an aircraft, and add significant new stuff, the stuff must meet all the CURRENT FAR's (the design must not duck the new safety standards.) Unlike the EC 225, which got a "new" type cretificate by just adding on to the ancient Puma certificate (and short changing the passenger safety features), the new Bell 210 must meet the new FAR. This is true for all new FAR/JAR certificates, BTW. (See FAR Part 21.110 for the details - basically, if there is a "significant" change the new stuff must meet the new FAR, no compromises).
That is probably why the 210 has a lesser envelope than the Huey, the FAA can't let it get away with the full envelope. Such things as IFR fall off the plate. Since LUH is a COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) program, this makes the 210 less capable than its competitors.
That is probably why the 210 has a lesser envelope than the Huey, the FAA can't let it get away with the full envelope. Such things as IFR fall off the plate. Since LUH is a COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) program, this makes the 210 less capable than its competitors.
Errrrr....did less capable always matter in a helicopter selection by the government?
"There are whole new product lines of state-of-the-art rotorcraft from several different companies that provide the Army with exactly what it is looking for" in an LUH or LRH helicopter, Zugschwert said. In fact, helicopter airframe manufacturers have offered virtually their entire fleet of aircraft to the Army.
Nonetheless, clear frontrunners already have emerged. The Bell 210 is an early favorite for the LUH mission while MD Helicopters' MH-6 has the edge in the LRH competition.
Both helicopter types have the advantage of being well-known to the Army. The 210, for instance, is an FAA-certified UH-1H Huey with dynamic components from the Bell 212. The Huey has been in service since the Vietnam War. There are roughly 10,000 UH-1s internationally; more than 400 used by the Army.
Thus, the 210 can be procured now at a cost of less than $3 million and delivered to the Army within eight months after certification, Bell's Fitzgerald said.
The aircraft's O&S costs also are some 10 percent less than the older Huey and half as expensive as the Black Hawk-an estimated $541/hour for the 210 versus $1,312/hour for the Black Hawk, according to Conklin & de Decker, an independent aviation research firm in Arlington, Texas.
The savings could be substantially greater if the dynamic components on the 210 significantly reduce the time between overhaul, the firm added. That is why, according to Bell, the 210 will have O&S some 42 percent less than the older Huey.
Additionally, Bell is offering the Army "performance-based logistics," whereby the company provides all logistics and support services while guaranteeing certain operational readiness rates.
"In terms of cost, the Army couldn't do much better than the Huey," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. "There are so many [of these helicopters] in service, and [LUH] has never been a requirement the Army wanted to spend money on."
The Army's requirement for a light utility helicopter has existed since 1996; however, it has never been funded, Gen. Sinclair said. According to deputy chief of staff for operations, Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, that's because the service faced a funding shortfall of some five billion dollars annually for most of the past decade.
This specifically meant shortchanging Army modernization initiatives like the Apache Longbow, aircraft survivability equipment, the Patriot Missile system, Bradley tanks-"all of the big stuff that it takes to run an Army," Cody said. "The Army had to make some tough calls every year," he noted.
This year, by contrast, for the first time in recent memory, Army aviation has not a single un-funded requirement.
If cost is the Army's biggest concern, then the service may opt to procure the PT6-powered Huey, which is even less expensive than the Bell 210. The PT6 Huey is being produced by DynCorps International and Global Helicopter Technology, Inc. The aircraft features the Pratt & Whitney PT6-67D engine and, at roughly one million dollars a copy, is one-third the procurement cost of the Honeywell T-53-17B-powered 210.
However, unlike the 210, the PT6 Huey will be not be remanufactured as a zero-time aircraft with new dynamic components. Yet, with new dynamic components, "in most cases, you double or triple the component times for overhaul," Fitzgerald said.
The PT6 features an improved tailrotor for enhanced directional control. "The standard Huey is known for lack of tailrotor power," said Scott Gardner, Global Helicopter Technology's vice president for operations.
The PT6 Huey also has received FAA certification. "How fast Bell says they can push that through the FAA-all I can is good luck, because we spent three years at it," Gardner said. Global Helicopter Technology did the certification work and produces the aircraft's Tail Rotor Enhancement Kit. Bell officials said they expect that the 210 will be FAA certified no later than the middle of next year.
Bell also is touting its ability to support the Army with "OEM-certified parts." But it is unclear how much this matters to the Army. According to Fitzgerald, only Bell can provide parts warrantees and fixed lifecycle costs with virtually no risk to Uncle Sam. "There's no guesswork here; we know what it costs to maintain a 212 component," he said.
But as Gardner observed, the Army owns a huge inventory of Huey parts. The service, he said, probably doesn't want to spend more money to procure additional spares, when it already has these abundantly available in its own depots.
For that reason, DynCorps and Global dispute the notion that O&S costs for the PT6 Huey are significantly higher. "Yes, it is true that a larger pool of spares is required. But the economics of the existing parts, even with a shorter life is, without doubt, less than the quite expensive 210 components," Gardner said.
Bell officials disagreed, but acknowledged that the PT6 Huey's up-front procurement cost is markedly less than the 210. However, they said the company is offering similarly-priced Huey II upgrade, which is just as good as the PT6 variant.
In any case, a number of commercial utility aircraft other than the Huey also are potential LUH solutions. By Aboulafia's count, these include the MD Explorer, Bell 427, Bell/Agusta Aerospace AB139, AgustaWestland A109, Eurocopter EC135, and Sikorsky S-76.
Equally important to the industry are all of the smaller-scale aircraft improvements, which have long been neglected, but which now are being funded. Aircraft survivability equipment, for instance, is now the "number one priority" of Army aviation. Yet, the service conspicuously failed to appropriate money for ASE in its FY03, 04 and 05 budgets.
Nonetheless, clear frontrunners already have emerged. The Bell 210 is an early favorite for the LUH mission while MD Helicopters' MH-6 has the edge in the LRH competition.
Both helicopter types have the advantage of being well-known to the Army. The 210, for instance, is an FAA-certified UH-1H Huey with dynamic components from the Bell 212. The Huey has been in service since the Vietnam War. There are roughly 10,000 UH-1s internationally; more than 400 used by the Army.
Thus, the 210 can be procured now at a cost of less than $3 million and delivered to the Army within eight months after certification, Bell's Fitzgerald said.
The aircraft's O&S costs also are some 10 percent less than the older Huey and half as expensive as the Black Hawk-an estimated $541/hour for the 210 versus $1,312/hour for the Black Hawk, according to Conklin & de Decker, an independent aviation research firm in Arlington, Texas.
The savings could be substantially greater if the dynamic components on the 210 significantly reduce the time between overhaul, the firm added. That is why, according to Bell, the 210 will have O&S some 42 percent less than the older Huey.
Additionally, Bell is offering the Army "performance-based logistics," whereby the company provides all logistics and support services while guaranteeing certain operational readiness rates.
"In terms of cost, the Army couldn't do much better than the Huey," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. "There are so many [of these helicopters] in service, and [LUH] has never been a requirement the Army wanted to spend money on."
The Army's requirement for a light utility helicopter has existed since 1996; however, it has never been funded, Gen. Sinclair said. According to deputy chief of staff for operations, Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, that's because the service faced a funding shortfall of some five billion dollars annually for most of the past decade.
This specifically meant shortchanging Army modernization initiatives like the Apache Longbow, aircraft survivability equipment, the Patriot Missile system, Bradley tanks-"all of the big stuff that it takes to run an Army," Cody said. "The Army had to make some tough calls every year," he noted.
This year, by contrast, for the first time in recent memory, Army aviation has not a single un-funded requirement.
If cost is the Army's biggest concern, then the service may opt to procure the PT6-powered Huey, which is even less expensive than the Bell 210. The PT6 Huey is being produced by DynCorps International and Global Helicopter Technology, Inc. The aircraft features the Pratt & Whitney PT6-67D engine and, at roughly one million dollars a copy, is one-third the procurement cost of the Honeywell T-53-17B-powered 210.
However, unlike the 210, the PT6 Huey will be not be remanufactured as a zero-time aircraft with new dynamic components. Yet, with new dynamic components, "in most cases, you double or triple the component times for overhaul," Fitzgerald said.
The PT6 features an improved tailrotor for enhanced directional control. "The standard Huey is known for lack of tailrotor power," said Scott Gardner, Global Helicopter Technology's vice president for operations.
The PT6 Huey also has received FAA certification. "How fast Bell says they can push that through the FAA-all I can is good luck, because we spent three years at it," Gardner said. Global Helicopter Technology did the certification work and produces the aircraft's Tail Rotor Enhancement Kit. Bell officials said they expect that the 210 will be FAA certified no later than the middle of next year.
Bell also is touting its ability to support the Army with "OEM-certified parts." But it is unclear how much this matters to the Army. According to Fitzgerald, only Bell can provide parts warrantees and fixed lifecycle costs with virtually no risk to Uncle Sam. "There's no guesswork here; we know what it costs to maintain a 212 component," he said.
But as Gardner observed, the Army owns a huge inventory of Huey parts. The service, he said, probably doesn't want to spend more money to procure additional spares, when it already has these abundantly available in its own depots.
For that reason, DynCorps and Global dispute the notion that O&S costs for the PT6 Huey are significantly higher. "Yes, it is true that a larger pool of spares is required. But the economics of the existing parts, even with a shorter life is, without doubt, less than the quite expensive 210 components," Gardner said.
Bell officials disagreed, but acknowledged that the PT6 Huey's up-front procurement cost is markedly less than the 210. However, they said the company is offering similarly-priced Huey II upgrade, which is just as good as the PT6 variant.
In any case, a number of commercial utility aircraft other than the Huey also are potential LUH solutions. By Aboulafia's count, these include the MD Explorer, Bell 427, Bell/Agusta Aerospace AB139, AgustaWestland A109, Eurocopter EC135, and Sikorsky S-76.
Equally important to the industry are all of the smaller-scale aircraft improvements, which have long been neglected, but which now are being funded. Aircraft survivability equipment, for instance, is now the "number one priority" of Army aviation. Yet, the service conspicuously failed to appropriate money for ASE in its FY03, 04 and 05 budgets.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lama Near,
That doesn't matter! The application for a TC change requires the applicant to show that the new FAR is impractical to impliment, and no decrease in safety!
It is FAR Part 21.101 (sorry for the typo above), which just came into effect:
[(a) An applicant for a change to a type certificate must show that the changed product complies with the airworthiness requirements applicable to the category of the product in effect on the date of the application for the change and with parts 34 and 36 of this chapter. Exceptions are detailed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Exceptions:
".... which the Administrator finds that compliance....would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the changed product or would be impractical."
That doesn't matter! The application for a TC change requires the applicant to show that the new FAR is impractical to impliment, and no decrease in safety!
It is FAR Part 21.101 (sorry for the typo above), which just came into effect:
[(a) An applicant for a change to a type certificate must show that the changed product complies with the airworthiness requirements applicable to the category of the product in effect on the date of the application for the change and with parts 34 and 36 of this chapter. Exceptions are detailed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Exceptions:
".... which the Administrator finds that compliance....would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the changed product or would be impractical."
Nick,
Knowing how your dear friends at the FAA like to cling to each word in their regs, manuals, memo's and such....is there a difference between "adding" an aircraft to a type certificate and "changing" a type certificate under the regulations?
Knowing how your dear friends at the FAA like to cling to each word in their regs, manuals, memo's and such....is there a difference between "adding" an aircraft to a type certificate and "changing" a type certificate under the regulations?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, adding and changing are Samo same. Making any any signifcant change and seeking FAA approval triggers the new requirements, whether adding a new major system or making a "B" model.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS: Bell owns the TC that allows building new helicopters which is what they say the 210 is. Nobody else has that capability on the Huey. Doing "shop" mods would be an STC. And for Standard cat., it has never been done.
The UH-1/205 jigs are gone,that is one reason the 210 is not a new fuse. Both Bell and the military destroyed them some time ago. The Military wanted to make sure they never went backwards and were forced to buy the Huey again. Opps! they gone out run.
The UH-1/205 jigs are gone,that is one reason the 210 is not a new fuse. Both Bell and the military destroyed them some time ago. The Military wanted to make sure they never went backwards and were forced to buy the Huey again. Opps! they gone out run.
UH1/205 jigs
If Bell and the US Army want jigs maybe they could get the Iranians to do it !!!!! I saw 206,205,214,212,AH1J Jigs all in use in Tehran about a year ago rebuilding and building "Persian Bells" from scratch, but then the US doesn't like to remember all the "goodies" still in IRAN.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they didnt stop through lack of demand, they stopped after they realised that the accountants or designers or whatever, got it wrong with the costs. i got told that they lost so much with each heli sold it wasnt funny.
trying to bring things from ex mil into civ, is virtually impossible, and Bell proved it. It also didnt help that Eagle were doing the Single 212, as a straight on competitor, and i believe at a lower cost, and the performance figures were better. the 210 was based on the UH1 therefore 10,200 mauw, 212 is 12,000, roughly.
trying to bring things from ex mil into civ, is virtually impossible, and Bell proved it. It also didnt help that Eagle were doing the Single 212, as a straight on competitor, and i believe at a lower cost, and the performance figures were better. the 210 was based on the UH1 therefore 10,200 mauw, 212 is 12,000, roughly.
World Wind Helicopters
I remember the opening to a Vertical Magazine article on World Wind Helicopters, a few years back saying something along the lines that they owned the largest fleet of Bell 210 in the world - being two 
lol
What happened to mass production of the 210 then? Or were there too many OAS and NW Helicopters re manufactured Huey IIs flooding the marketplace and Bell wanted to continue with the 412?
Cheers
lolWhat happened to mass production of the 210 then? Or were there too many OAS and NW Helicopters re manufactured Huey IIs flooding the marketplace and Bell wanted to continue with the 412?
Cheers
