Bell 206: JetRanger and LongRanger
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad governor, or fuel control. Torque variations without tail wiggles and without Nr variations are just bubbly oil inside torque meter. This is a real engine issue, could be air in fuel (pressure lite might be too slow) or it could be a sticky rod in the fuel control that is getting jumpy.
One diagnostic is to stabilize in hover, not torque wiggles, roll back throttle to capture control and see if this damps the wiggles. If so, the problem is in the governor, if not, the problem is fuel/fuel control. BE CAREFUL, if this procedure worries you, have a real maint pilot do it, of just don't do it.
One diagnostic is to stabilize in hover, not torque wiggles, roll back throttle to capture control and see if this damps the wiggles. If so, the problem is in the governor, if not, the problem is fuel/fuel control. BE CAREFUL, if this procedure worries you, have a real maint pilot do it, of just don't do it.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kent
Age: 55
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torqe fluctuations
Hi, the fluctuations that you are having on your 206 are most likely to be the double check valves, assuming that you have a bendix fuel system, these are the two round barrells on the port side of the engine. A simple way of proving is to ask your maintenance provider to try a pair from another engine, it is a vey simple operation. Another more sinister problem has been found on other 206's that I know where the engine mounts were loose and the engine was moving whilst under flight conditions causing fluctuations on the torque. That was discovered after several thousands of pounds had already been spent.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once flew a 206 to maintenance with a similar problem. Anything over 85% caused torque/power fluctuations. Reducing it to 80% in the cruise and the problem went away. Above 85% in the cruise and it fishtailed.
I believe a Power Turbine Governor was exchanged with another and no more problem. Hopefully when the problem is sorted, you'll come back and tell us what they found.
I believe a Power Turbine Governor was exchanged with another and no more problem. Hopefully when the problem is sorted, you'll come back and tell us what they found.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Murica.
Age: 45
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys.
I will run these answers by the maintenance department here. They looked at it when first reported, and checked all the fuel lines and oil lines. They found one fuel line to be a little loose, so changed that. But the indications are still the same.
Will definitely tell you about what they find.
Ken
I will run these answers by the maintenance department here. They looked at it when first reported, and checked all the fuel lines and oil lines. They found one fuel line to be a little loose, so changed that. But the indications are still the same.
Will definitely tell you about what they find.
Ken
"Just a pilot"
Years ago, I encountered an engine surging issue at cruise power settings, fine at climb or reduced power and sudden onset. I'm only a pilot, but my recollection is that it turned out to be a starter generator issue. Once replaced, no problems.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
Age: 65
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some thoughts on the Bell 206...
I got my type rating on the 206B/L in August 2005 after nine years of private flying in the H300, S330 and the MD500. I had a few ideas about the type long before I got a rating on it, and I also had some non-official stick time in a military AB206 (friend in the Swedish Army). My experience also includes a few hours in the AS350B2 (with a North Pole landing), three hours of Bell 412 simulator along with an hour in the real thing, a test flight in the MD900 Explorer, a couple of hours of Bell 204, an hour of 205 and a test drive of the EC120.
When I got my initial helicopter traing, way back then, my teacher was a very experienced 100% MD500 kind of guy. He called the Jetranger "Jet Danger" because of a few opinions he had about it. Naturally, my hero indoctrinated me. That all boiled down to a few points, some very true and some less so:
1. It's great for flying straight ahead and level. Not for "bending around" in the sky.
2. You don't want to be in the left seat when things go wrong - decapitation is a sure outcome.
3. Don't land it on slopes!
4. Lift off carefully, if you are entangled in something on the ground it's gonna flip.
5. Don't throw it down after clearing an obstacle. Blade will meet tail boom and you'll go down.
6. Fly with a pendulum in your mouth and make sure it points to your d*ck at all times. Failing to do so results in loose parts above roof level.
7. It's not a powerful machine - don't bring too many people on your trips.
8. Autorotations are supposed to be spectacular.
So, how do I feel after roughly a year and 70 hrs in type? Great! Here's why:
1. It's great for flying straight an level. Pilot workload is very low, and if you want to make a tight turn, just do it with said pendulum pointing to said location. The thing actually has better "bite" in the turns than does the MD500E! I can make an extremely tight pattern on a small, narrow field and never end up outside the field's limits.
2. No, I really don't want to be in the left seat, say when making a hard landing. On the other hand, you have to be somewhat irresponsible to even get close to a hard landing. I know of a military guy who lost his head in the left seat of a 206 when the blade came his way as the right skid got caught under a tree-root - the blade does hit the left seat head...
3. Slopes... Well, it's not like the 500. On my type rating course on the 500 I was instructed to land on a tree-stub. Cyclic met collective as I lifted my left knee to allow them to... I'm definately careful with the 206 when it comes to slopes...
4. I always lift off carefully, so that is not a problem for me. The difference to the 500 is the lack of feedback, so "sensing around" carefully with the cyclic before letting it leave the ground is now a standard procedure for me, and it should make me realize that I am stuck before it's too late. Don't want that dynamic rollover...
5. Even though I can't dive back down after clearing an obstacle, I have sort of gotten used to flying differently in the 206, so it's not a problem, and the flying experience is just DIFFERENT to the 500, not better or worse.
6. Well, your ass needs to be in your seat in the 206, that's for sure. Sideslips, crazy G-manouveres et al - no, no! This actually sharpens the pilot, and once the technique to fly absolutely "clean" is mastered, it should be both rewarding and safe, right? Yes!
7. This is the sad part with the 206 - kind of weak (Jet, that is, not long). On the other hand, I have never experienced translational lift at 5 kts in another type. Not only does it happen early - it's also like hitting a high curb with a car. Wiggle around with five people, full fuel with range extender, 100% TQ (C20 - no B) and barely able to hover at one foot. Once you slide your five knots - it "bumps" off into the air. Amazing!
8. Autos are spectacular! And fun! Full touch down every one during my type rating. I even got a friend who has instructor rating to take me for some extra autorotations because it was so great! I even tried the 90/90-version - that is 90% Nr and 90 kts. Boy, does it go far in that flight regime! After that type rating and the extra stuff, I now feel very comfortable autorotating all my rated types. Even the 500 feels nice. I must have passed a magic threashold or something - it's just plain fun! BUT! If I was to have the "ideal accident" I would autorotate down with a Bell 206, and - if a roll was to happen - I would roll in an MD500.
So. having been an avid backtalker of the Bell 206 line of helicopters, I now creep up to the cross on my knees, say my praise and admit: It's a GREAT machine! There are still things I rather do in a 500, but what the heck, they're different machines and should be used for different purposes.
All you professionals out there; I had to get this off my chest after reading ALL post in this thread (god you quarrel too much!).
All the best from a private flyer with access to a fully IFR/VMC equipped 206BII (and some others too).
When I got my initial helicopter traing, way back then, my teacher was a very experienced 100% MD500 kind of guy. He called the Jetranger "Jet Danger" because of a few opinions he had about it. Naturally, my hero indoctrinated me. That all boiled down to a few points, some very true and some less so:
1. It's great for flying straight ahead and level. Not for "bending around" in the sky.
2. You don't want to be in the left seat when things go wrong - decapitation is a sure outcome.
3. Don't land it on slopes!
4. Lift off carefully, if you are entangled in something on the ground it's gonna flip.
5. Don't throw it down after clearing an obstacle. Blade will meet tail boom and you'll go down.
6. Fly with a pendulum in your mouth and make sure it points to your d*ck at all times. Failing to do so results in loose parts above roof level.
7. It's not a powerful machine - don't bring too many people on your trips.
8. Autorotations are supposed to be spectacular.
So, how do I feel after roughly a year and 70 hrs in type? Great! Here's why:
1. It's great for flying straight an level. Pilot workload is very low, and if you want to make a tight turn, just do it with said pendulum pointing to said location. The thing actually has better "bite" in the turns than does the MD500E! I can make an extremely tight pattern on a small, narrow field and never end up outside the field's limits.
2. No, I really don't want to be in the left seat, say when making a hard landing. On the other hand, you have to be somewhat irresponsible to even get close to a hard landing. I know of a military guy who lost his head in the left seat of a 206 when the blade came his way as the right skid got caught under a tree-root - the blade does hit the left seat head...
3. Slopes... Well, it's not like the 500. On my type rating course on the 500 I was instructed to land on a tree-stub. Cyclic met collective as I lifted my left knee to allow them to... I'm definately careful with the 206 when it comes to slopes...
4. I always lift off carefully, so that is not a problem for me. The difference to the 500 is the lack of feedback, so "sensing around" carefully with the cyclic before letting it leave the ground is now a standard procedure for me, and it should make me realize that I am stuck before it's too late. Don't want that dynamic rollover...
5. Even though I can't dive back down after clearing an obstacle, I have sort of gotten used to flying differently in the 206, so it's not a problem, and the flying experience is just DIFFERENT to the 500, not better or worse.
6. Well, your ass needs to be in your seat in the 206, that's for sure. Sideslips, crazy G-manouveres et al - no, no! This actually sharpens the pilot, and once the technique to fly absolutely "clean" is mastered, it should be both rewarding and safe, right? Yes!
7. This is the sad part with the 206 - kind of weak (Jet, that is, not long). On the other hand, I have never experienced translational lift at 5 kts in another type. Not only does it happen early - it's also like hitting a high curb with a car. Wiggle around with five people, full fuel with range extender, 100% TQ (C20 - no B) and barely able to hover at one foot. Once you slide your five knots - it "bumps" off into the air. Amazing!
8. Autos are spectacular! And fun! Full touch down every one during my type rating. I even got a friend who has instructor rating to take me for some extra autorotations because it was so great! I even tried the 90/90-version - that is 90% Nr and 90 kts. Boy, does it go far in that flight regime! After that type rating and the extra stuff, I now feel very comfortable autorotating all my rated types. Even the 500 feels nice. I must have passed a magic threashold or something - it's just plain fun! BUT! If I was to have the "ideal accident" I would autorotate down with a Bell 206, and - if a roll was to happen - I would roll in an MD500.
So. having been an avid backtalker of the Bell 206 line of helicopters, I now creep up to the cross on my knees, say my praise and admit: It's a GREAT machine! There are still things I rather do in a 500, but what the heck, they're different machines and should be used for different purposes.
All you professionals out there; I had to get this off my chest after reading ALL post in this thread (god you quarrel too much!).
All the best from a private flyer with access to a fully IFR/VMC equipped 206BII (and some others too).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Murica.
Age: 45
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The diagnosis is in
The machine went in for some tlc, and this is what the engineers found:
(sorry for the lack of the exact terms, hope it is good enough to be understood)
The "arm" or lever or what it is called connecting the linear actuator to the governor was too tight. It was not moveable by hand. I am talking about the "arm\lever" that has the bent piece of nail pointing at the scale.
This apparently was the cause of the torque fluctuations.
Linear actuator and governor changed and machine is back online, and so far so good.
I hope this is of value, and also that you guys understood it.
(sorry for the lack of the exact terms, hope it is good enough to be understood)
The "arm" or lever or what it is called connecting the linear actuator to the governor was too tight. It was not moveable by hand. I am talking about the "arm\lever" that has the bent piece of nail pointing at the scale.
This apparently was the cause of the torque fluctuations.
Linear actuator and governor changed and machine is back online, and so far so good.
I hope this is of value, and also that you guys understood it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetranger or Bell 47
I'm a CPL(A) and CPL(H) that up till now has been looking to buy a Bell47 for hour-building (I have 100 hours in 47 and 1 hour in 206).
QUESTION: Given that parts for a Bell 47 are getting so expensive and hard to get hold of is it likely that it would make more economical sence to buy a Jetranger rather than a Bell47???
I know it burns more juice and will be a higher purchase price but these 2 points aside - would it be any more expensive in maintenance and part replacement than a 47 ?
If someone can give me a rough guide like 10% more expensive or 100% more that would help me make a decision.
Any advice appreciated.
OOW
QUESTION: Given that parts for a Bell 47 are getting so expensive and hard to get hold of is it likely that it would make more economical sence to buy a Jetranger rather than a Bell47???
I know it burns more juice and will be a higher purchase price but these 2 points aside - would it be any more expensive in maintenance and part replacement than a 47 ?
If someone can give me a rough guide like 10% more expensive or 100% more that would help me make a decision.
Any advice appreciated.
OOW
Bell 206: surely I'm not the only one??
Up until S/N 1251, Bell fitted a three part fairing set on Bell 206's (and similar on Agusta units).
Now, these mounted underneath onto the old fabricated T/R gearbox supports with no problem. However, these supports were superceded after 1251 with a cast unit and the manufacturers changed the fairing to a two-part metal design that mounted in a completely different way (they also slightly modded the vert fin and the T/R driveshaft cover).
Now, I've had to replace my support (in compliance with CAA LTO 2897) with a later cast one....but there's no advice from Bell or Agusta on how to mount the older three part fairings as you obviously can't drill into the casting - lots of people have checked and there's nothing. And you can't swap to the two part fairings, as you also need to change the fin etc etc.
So I'm faced with a £20k bill to design a modification to convert my unit. Has anybody else come across this problem and if so how did they solve it? Or is there anyone else out there having the same prob who wants to split the cost of the mod?
Now, these mounted underneath onto the old fabricated T/R gearbox supports with no problem. However, these supports were superceded after 1251 with a cast unit and the manufacturers changed the fairing to a two-part metal design that mounted in a completely different way (they also slightly modded the vert fin and the T/R driveshaft cover).
Now, I've had to replace my support (in compliance with CAA LTO 2897) with a later cast one....but there's no advice from Bell or Agusta on how to mount the older three part fairings as you obviously can't drill into the casting - lots of people have checked and there's nothing. And you can't swap to the two part fairings, as you also need to change the fin etc etc.
So I'm faced with a £20k bill to design a modification to convert my unit. Has anybody else come across this problem and if so how did they solve it? Or is there anyone else out there having the same prob who wants to split the cost of the mod?
I am presuming that your ship is Agusta and on UK register, therefore you are not able to install a later series Bell Fin?
I.E. CAA dictae you have to install a Fin supplied from Agusta, which I imagine there are not many about?
Otherwise, Bell SV fins are quite easy to come by. Certainly less than $20k of the price of modification.
I.E. CAA dictae you have to install a Fin supplied from Agusta, which I imagine there are not many about?
Otherwise, Bell SV fins are quite easy to come by. Certainly less than $20k of the price of modification.
You're right: it's an Agusta. $30k for the fin alone. And now we cannot fit Bell parts to Agusta machines in EASA land, it's a real problem.
To make matters worse, it's not just the fin: the T/R driveshaft cover is bigger on the later machines, so I'd have to change the fin, the cover and the rear engine cowling, as well as the two parts of the fairing! $lots!
To make matters worse, it's not just the fin: the T/R driveshaft cover is bigger on the later machines, so I'd have to change the fin, the cover and the rear engine cowling, as well as the two parts of the fairing! $lots!
contact airandground they are somewhere near stafford and have a big inventory of Agusta parts, they may be able to help. They advertise in helidata. Out of interest why do you believe you cannot interchange Bell with Agusta ? I know of many aoc Bell 206,s that are littered with Agusta parts. I know of one that has just been half rebuilt using Agusta parts and is doing public Transport very happily !! As far as i am aware it is only a letter and only enforceable in US and Canada but not here . No doubt the pen pushers will get their way even tho things have been fine for what...37 years or more ??????
You are quite right you're not the only one so there must be a fair number of people in a similar situation.
This may sound daft, but why not intially have this as a thread for owners with Bell Bits on an agusta or Agusta Bits on a Bell who need to swap them (subject to Mods / Dannys permission , no commercial value just a cost saver)
Or is there a once its been fitted you can't fit it back on an original manufacturers aircraft kind of proviso.
I am sure someone will come up with a page for people to swap their bell / agusta parts on which has some elegance and a search facility (given the time i'd do it).
V.
This may sound daft, but why not intially have this as a thread for owners with Bell Bits on an agusta or Agusta Bits on a Bell who need to swap them (subject to Mods / Dannys permission , no commercial value just a cost saver)
Or is there a once its been fitted you can't fit it back on an original manufacturers aircraft kind of proviso.
I am sure someone will come up with a page for people to swap their bell / agusta parts on which has some elegance and a search facility (given the time i'd do it).
V.
Find it hard to believe airandground cannot help, i know they have just completely rebuilt 2 machines and have a vast warehouse full of parts...maybe they are saving them ? How have we allowed this to happen ? Are we certain that it is legal for Bell to do this after so many years? Grandfather rights? There must be a whole lot of grounded 206,s out there now......or not...
My take on it is that it's not too much of an issue for Bell parts on Agusta machines: apparently, Agusta will 'adopt' any parts fitted before a certain date (prob 6 months ago). My machine is riddled with Bell bits: transmission, R/Head, mast, tailboom etc etc all Bell bits.
But - and here's the rub - in future, I need to get my xmsn overhauled by an Agusta approved shop, and that in reality means sending it back to Agusta.And they don't give a toss about the 206.
It's not Bell: it's EASA we should be grumpy with.
But - and here's the rub - in future, I need to get my xmsn overhauled by an Agusta approved shop, and that in reality means sending it back to Agusta.And they don't give a toss about the 206.
It's not Bell: it's EASA we should be grumpy with.
but i thought this was due to a letter from Bell. If it has been ok in the past can it be made illegal now and effectively backdated? What if you have just bought a 206 with mixed parts? Do Bell really need to kill off the Agusta Bell 206 ? Technically i would have thought that as the authorities are aware that a huge no of aircraft are flying with mixed parts and have been for decades then there should be some firm directive. What happens if some parts are not available from Agusta ? People will find a way around this problem i am sure.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question i have been thinking about 
The B206 manual states that a min crew weight of 170lbs is required in the cockpit.
So what do light weight pilots do while flying solo. I ammume weights must be carried but what type & where are the stored?
The B206 manual states that a min crew weight of 170lbs is required in the cockpit.
So what do light weight pilots do while flying solo. I ammume weights must be carried but what type & where are the stored?
Just take your girlfriend along with you for extra ballast. Or, If you're married, just take your girlfriend along with you.
You could use a sandbag on floor at other side if duals are removed and kept clear of cyclic attachment point etc.
lead plates?
You could use a sandbag on floor at other side if duals are removed and kept clear of cyclic attachment point etc.
lead plates?