Bell 206: JetRanger and LongRanger
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.eflightmanuals.com/detail...goryGroupID=57
this may give you a clue as to why they will be hard to find on the internet.
I think also that most manufacturers will only sell to the registered owner of the aircraft .
You may find some miltary ones look for TH57 and OH58D.
http://www.eflightmanuals.com/detail...goryGroupID=11
You may need a US mailng address though , some interesting older ones though.
this may give you a clue as to why they will be hard to find on the internet.
I think also that most manufacturers will only sell to the registered owner of the aircraft .
You may find some miltary ones look for TH57 and OH58D.
http://www.eflightmanuals.com/detail...goryGroupID=11
You may need a US mailng address though , some interesting older ones though.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While eflightmanuals is a good source of CD and paper copies of manuals, this website is a good source of original manuals, for the collectors among us.
Essco Aircraft flight manuals
Essco Aircraft flight manuals
B206 B continious rating?
Somebody out there who can verify that I remember correctly the transmission limits on 206B.
The 85% torque limit is a 317 hp limit! Right?
and the 85-100% Q limit is 350 hp limit! Right?
I dont have my manuals accessible at the moment! Would appreciate feedback from someone who can verify
The 85% torque limit is a 317 hp limit! Right?
and the 85-100% Q limit is 350 hp limit! Right?
I dont have my manuals accessible at the moment! Would appreciate feedback from someone who can verify
Who cares??
Where is your Horsepower gauge in the aircraft?
You only have a torquemeter. So, max cont is 85% torque, forget about the horsepower. Numbers like that occupy far too many brain cells, and they are the ones that die off early in your beer-swilling life.
Usually the only people who would remember something like this are the pedantic instructors who have heads full of such crap and trivia.
Where is your Horsepower gauge in the aircraft?
You only have a torquemeter. So, max cont is 85% torque, forget about the horsepower. Numbers like that occupy far too many brain cells, and they are the ones that die off early in your beer-swilling life.
Usually the only people who would remember something like this are the pedantic instructors who have heads full of such crap and trivia.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight from the book
While Ascend Charlie might have a point , I dont know of any 206 jockey that would know these figures, here you are:::
This is for the 206B III engine is the 250-C20J
Max Continuous Power (SHP) 85% Tq = 270HP
Take-Off Power (Rated ) 100% Tq=317Hp
The above engine is a 420 shp detrated to 317 in the 206
Enjoy
PS Still beats me what you want the figures for!
This is for the 206B III engine is the 250-C20J
Max Continuous Power (SHP) 85% Tq = 270HP
Take-Off Power (Rated ) 100% Tq=317Hp
The above engine is a 420 shp detrated to 317 in the 206
Enjoy
PS Still beats me what you want the figures for!
Ok thanks guy´s, don´t know how I got that 350 hp idea in my head.
No, the reason really is just to explain to others that the engine is derated (well or actually power limited due to gearbox) and its easier to explain using the horsepower figures.
I for example have a 206B with the C20 engine, which is 400 hp and since I usually fly at lower altitudes in cold climate it really makes no difference for me to have the C20B engine or the straight C20. Can´t use the horsepower anyway.
Thanks again.
No, the reason really is just to explain to others that the engine is derated (well or actually power limited due to gearbox) and its easier to explain using the horsepower figures.
I for example have a 206B with the C20 engine, which is 400 hp and since I usually fly at lower altitudes in cold climate it really makes no difference for me to have the C20B engine or the straight C20. Can´t use the horsepower anyway.
Thanks again.
Jetranger Power Management during Confined Area Take offs
I saw this post on a US based website where some EMS pilots are discussing how to maximize the available power on Jetranger EMS helicopters. Some rather interesting suggestions were made by pseudo experts and they were interesting to read. The post immediately before the one I am going to paste here, suggested beeping up the Nr as being the right answer. This is the reply......what do you guys think?
The stolen post.....
Subject: Re: Increased N2 does not equate to less TQ available.
Be patient please, this is a long answer. If I have this wrong, I am sure it will be corrected post haste.
The INC/DCR switch changes the linear actuator setting which is in the throttle linkage to the governor. This sets the engines N2 speed which, when coupled via sprag clutch, sets a matching Nr speed.
You are enabling the fuel control to deliver more fuel to the engine and using up the engine horsepower available in excess of what can be applied to the xmsn/drive train. This is why helicopters have turbine engines spec'd with more horsepower than the xmsn/drive train can handle so their operating capabilities remain constant over a wider range of DA.
Torque is a measure of the engine power being applied to the xmsn/drive train. So long as environmental conditions allow the engine to produce more horsepower than is allowed to be applied to the xmsn/drive train, you can maintain a high N2/Nr without using up TQ. 100% TQ always equals the same amount of HP in the given aircraft. The engine may be using more fuel, more TOT, and more N1 speed (cooling/cumbustion air) to produce a given HP; however, the TQ/HP relationship is the same.
When you increase Nr speed, you gain more lift from the rotor system at any given collective pitch setting.
The stolen post.....
Subject: Re: Increased N2 does not equate to less TQ available.
Be patient please, this is a long answer. If I have this wrong, I am sure it will be corrected post haste.
The INC/DCR switch changes the linear actuator setting which is in the throttle linkage to the governor. This sets the engines N2 speed which, when coupled via sprag clutch, sets a matching Nr speed.
You are enabling the fuel control to deliver more fuel to the engine and using up the engine horsepower available in excess of what can be applied to the xmsn/drive train. This is why helicopters have turbine engines spec'd with more horsepower than the xmsn/drive train can handle so their operating capabilities remain constant over a wider range of DA.
Torque is a measure of the engine power being applied to the xmsn/drive train. So long as environmental conditions allow the engine to produce more horsepower than is allowed to be applied to the xmsn/drive train, you can maintain a high N2/Nr without using up TQ. 100% TQ always equals the same amount of HP in the given aircraft. The engine may be using more fuel, more TOT, and more N1 speed (cooling/cumbustion air) to produce a given HP; however, the TQ/HP relationship is the same.
When you increase Nr speed, you gain more lift from the rotor system at any given collective pitch setting.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you increase Nr speed, you gain more lift from the rotor system at any given collective pitch setting.
How about as RPM goes up, torque goes down if power remains constant, or put another way, if RPM goes up and torque remains constant, power goes up?
So RPM goes up, you get more lift for the same drag and more power for the same torque. Now about that "using up the engine horsepower available in excess of what can be applied to the xmsn/drive train"...
SASless, appologies for a little thread creep here, but the more alarming thing to me was the accepted practice of hanging around in a 206, with marginal performance, in a 150' OGE hover with the patient on board, trying to pull out of a hover hole . Just add night, inexperience, fatigue and bad weather and perhaps the appaling US EMS accident rate is little more understandable
Where are the safety margins??
1. always into the wind
2. vertical ascent until well clear of obstacles; usually 50' to 150'
3. smooth collective pull to 91-95%TQ; TQ spikes will occur with left pedal input, wind changes, etc., holding at 95% leaves some room without having an overtorque
4. the 206L will climb and then stop, be patient and gently work your way up 10' to 20' at a time by:
a. waiting for more wind
b. aft cyclic inputs
c. right pedal inputs + collective increases
d. be patient
e. be patient
f. be patient
5. once clear of obstacles, forward cyclic while holding 91-95%TQ until at 60KIAS and 300'AGL, then proceed on course
2. vertical ascent until well clear of obstacles; usually 50' to 150'
3. smooth collective pull to 91-95%TQ; TQ spikes will occur with left pedal input, wind changes, etc., holding at 95% leaves some room without having an overtorque
4. the 206L will climb and then stop, be patient and gently work your way up 10' to 20' at a time by:
a. waiting for more wind
b. aft cyclic inputs
c. right pedal inputs + collective increases
d. be patient
e. be patient
f. be patient
5. once clear of obstacles, forward cyclic while holding 91-95%TQ until at 60KIAS and 300'AGL, then proceed on course
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are the safety margins?
We the pilots are the ones responsible for the safety of our pax and our selves. We are the ones that decide to pull pitch. We are the ones who decide that we can just sneak over that. We are the ones that think that we should just about get through there. We are the ones that decide that we should just about make it across to there. We are the ones that decide that it isn't really that bad. We are also the ones most responsible for accident reports.
If we are dicking about milking the extra ounce of Tq or the extra 0.25% of NR, we simply do not have the aircraft to do the job. As long as we continue to do it, we will keep the accident reports coming.
It is a matter of self-discipline but as long as we/you continue to do it, there will be little improvement in safety. Because we arrived, doesn't mean we arrived safely.
Sorry for the rant but there are very few helicopters that got to the accident site on their own.
STL
If we are dicking about milking the extra ounce of Tq or the extra 0.25% of NR, we simply do not have the aircraft to do the job. As long as we continue to do it, we will keep the accident reports coming.
It is a matter of self-discipline but as long as we/you continue to do it, there will be little improvement in safety. Because we arrived, doesn't mean we arrived safely.
Sorry for the rant but there are very few helicopters that got to the accident site on their own.
STL
SawTheLight, yeah, we know that mate?
A jetranger is a jetranger; it does a job. Are you going to change A/C mid-task? The bounds are going to be pushed when you fly the weak and inspid girl, but, what are the rules of thumb, not the airmanship rules? They have been expored ; let's share.
Gibbo
A jetranger is a jetranger; it does a job. Are you going to change A/C mid-task? The bounds are going to be pushed when you fly the weak and inspid girl, but, what are the rules of thumb, not the airmanship rules? They have been expored ; let's share.
Gibbo
Bomber,
That is the post that made me smile...I have heard and seen the same situation with 212's on Mud Rigs surrounded by trees. That would be a profile that 212man knows well but is not checked during Base Checks during the HayDay of the 212's in Nigeria.
Be it the GOM or other places in the oil patch....we always seem to have more load than lift.
That is the post that made me smile...I have heard and seen the same situation with 212's on Mud Rigs surrounded by trees. That would be a profile that 212man knows well but is not checked during Base Checks during the HayDay of the 212's in Nigeria.
Be it the GOM or other places in the oil patch....we always seem to have more load than lift.
This post will be out of sequence and somewhat extended, anyway, the EMS industry in the USA is based on very different principles compared to the European and maybe Australian one.
At some point in the food chain someone HAS to see some profit to make the whole process work.
Consequently, somewhere expenses have to be cut; I am assuming that not all of the posters here are USA based, so let me explain that there are two main models of HEMS operations in the USA: Hospital Based and "Community" Based, whereas the former is a traditional vendor/customer contract and the second one really just makes money by charging the transported patients.
It's very common for most of the "Community Based" operators to limit their helicopter choice to the most simple and inexpensive 206L I/III model and these are often a ragtag fleet of tired "ex-Gulf' machines with some of them having in excess of 20,000 hrs in the book.
Given the generally more "generous" physical constitution of the American public, you can easily see how the venerable and often tired Longranger may be hard pressed to complete a climb to level flight from a confined area.
We will also see that most often than not, the pilots of this group have less flying experience as they are not required to fly IFR and exhibit a tendency to push a flight through even in marginal VFR conditions often leading to IIMC flight.
Combine that with the requirement to pull a flight through to see the money and there you have a perfect recipe for disaster.
Confusingly enough though, the first two accidents of the year (both fatals to an extent) involved very experienced flight crews in modern machines emplyed by the largest EMS operator in the US, none of which had a patient onboard since the transport had already taken place.
The common denominator here being night conditions.
By the way, it's my experience that by (beeper) increasing N2/Nr, indicated TQ increases as well due to an increase in total drag (flying a 412 that can be quite noticeable).
At some point in the food chain someone HAS to see some profit to make the whole process work.
Consequently, somewhere expenses have to be cut; I am assuming that not all of the posters here are USA based, so let me explain that there are two main models of HEMS operations in the USA: Hospital Based and "Community" Based, whereas the former is a traditional vendor/customer contract and the second one really just makes money by charging the transported patients.
It's very common for most of the "Community Based" operators to limit their helicopter choice to the most simple and inexpensive 206L I/III model and these are often a ragtag fleet of tired "ex-Gulf' machines with some of them having in excess of 20,000 hrs in the book.
Given the generally more "generous" physical constitution of the American public, you can easily see how the venerable and often tired Longranger may be hard pressed to complete a climb to level flight from a confined area.
We will also see that most often than not, the pilots of this group have less flying experience as they are not required to fly IFR and exhibit a tendency to push a flight through even in marginal VFR conditions often leading to IIMC flight.
Combine that with the requirement to pull a flight through to see the money and there you have a perfect recipe for disaster.
Confusingly enough though, the first two accidents of the year (both fatals to an extent) involved very experienced flight crews in modern machines emplyed by the largest EMS operator in the US, none of which had a patient onboard since the transport had already taken place.
The common denominator here being night conditions.
By the way, it's my experience that by (beeper) increasing N2/Nr, indicated TQ increases as well due to an increase in total drag (flying a 412 that can be quite noticeable).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Most of what was said in the original post is difficult to follow, it must be said.
Power is torque times rotor RPM (with a constant thrown in to do the coversions).
Torque is the drag on the rotor blades.
It follows that normally (and I must stress normally), that at a constant power, increasing the rotor RPM will decrease the torque.
In my short time flying the 412, I've been quite surprised to see that when we beep back the RPM for cruise, the torque goes down at a constant collective pitch - this is quite contrary to 'normal', and indicates that the rotor is more efficient at this lower RPM.
Power is torque times rotor RPM (with a constant thrown in to do the coversions).
Torque is the drag on the rotor blades.
It follows that normally (and I must stress normally), that at a constant power, increasing the rotor RPM will decrease the torque.
In my short time flying the 412, I've been quite surprised to see that when we beep back the RPM for cruise, the torque goes down at a constant collective pitch - this is quite contrary to 'normal', and indicates that the rotor is more efficient at this lower RPM.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me, if I recall correctly from my days flying the S-58T, 100%Q @100% RRPM would cause the engines to put out 1625 h.p. while 100%Q @93% RRPM would produce 1525 h.p. So that extra 7% RRPM gave us an extra 100 h.p.
But like a lot of things that I *think* are stored away in the memory, it may be incorrect.
But like a lot of things that I *think* are stored away in the memory, it may be incorrect.