Bell 206: JetRanger and LongRanger
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been to that part of the world and having flown both those aircraft for many years I can say the difference is day and night. What your asking is on the upper edge of the B206B3s performance and within the capabilities of the B206L3. You may be able to sit down with the numbers and say yes it can be done with the B3, but when you get out in the field and catch that extra gust on your tail rotor and watch the Tq meter wrap around a couple times, it then becomes clear.
Thats in a bare bones aircraft. When you add on floats, A/C and four construction workers, your leaving at max gross.......THEN you have to work.
Yes I believe the extra expense of an L3 would be worth it. You will also have to crunch numbers with an L3 but will have much more to play with.
Pose this on the African Forum and see what some others say.
If you hit the Lotto in the meantime look at a B407. Having recently flown that one, it will really make you smile.
If your going to invest, invest in safety.
Good Luck
My email address works.
Thats in a bare bones aircraft. When you add on floats, A/C and four construction workers, your leaving at max gross.......THEN you have to work.
Yes I believe the extra expense of an L3 would be worth it. You will also have to crunch numbers with an L3 but will have much more to play with.
Pose this on the African Forum and see what some others say.
If you hit the Lotto in the meantime look at a B407. Having recently flown that one, it will really make you smile.
If your going to invest, invest in safety.
Good Luck
My email address works.
"Just a pilot"
Have to second Jellycopter-the B3 is on the skinnny side of marginal as proposed. Yes, it'll do it the job if everything's ideal-but only just. If you can live with compromising on your requirements (like limiting max gross by a couple hundred pounds) versus cost, the B3 is an economical choice. If that's not an option, the L3 is better choice-it's got so much more capacity versus what you propose, that it would be my first choice as a pilot-and I don't like flying LongRangers-cramped, wiggly and CG requires more attention (still very simple).
The L3 is the workhorse of the pair proposed.
The L3 is the workhorse of the pair proposed.
Thanks fellas. Much appreciate your replies. I'll just have to explain to the boss-man that he'll have to postpone the new Ferrari for a couple of months and spend a bit more on his chopper! Thanks again. J
Further confirmation on the L series - agree with all the comments above.
We operated 206 B2 and B3 alongside an original L - which has a C20B and water methanol injection for takeoff. Even though it was the same engine as in the B, it was able to go faster (better area rule), flew smoother (nodamatic versus crappomatic) and allowed more space in the back.
Move up to an L3 or L4 and it leaves a B3 in its wake. Your boss might prefer a B3 for his wallet, but his customers / passengers will be very cramped in the back, especially the centre seat with 3" less headroom and a transmission tunnel" under his feet. The L3 has these too, but with your passenger load, nobody is inflicted with the centre seat, as long as he doesn't mind going backwards.
We operated 206 B2 and B3 alongside an original L - which has a C20B and water methanol injection for takeoff. Even though it was the same engine as in the B, it was able to go faster (better area rule), flew smoother (nodamatic versus crappomatic) and allowed more space in the back.
Move up to an L3 or L4 and it leaves a B3 in its wake. Your boss might prefer a B3 for his wallet, but his customers / passengers will be very cramped in the back, especially the centre seat with 3" less headroom and a transmission tunnel" under his feet. The L3 has these too, but with your passenger load, nobody is inflicted with the centre seat, as long as he doesn't mind going backwards.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also check out the L1/C30P
One other option you should keep in mind is the L-1 re-engined with the -C30P engine. Quite a few were thus modified by PHI amongst others. With the upgraded rotorhead (they nearly all have them) the max gross weight is identical to the L3, performance is identical, the fuel capacity is a bit lower but no problem for what you propose. They'll be available at good prices.
The modification was brought about by problems with the -C28 engine, especially but not limited to, high DA situations.
The modification was brought about by problems with the -C28 engine, especially but not limited to, high DA situations.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Post by Buitzenzorg. I even forgot that I had flown the B206L1/C30P long before I flew the L3. Basically the same thing. It certainly would be a choice for purchase in the utility scene.
I think the only real difference would be some ADs to the L1 tailboom that were factory correct on the L3?? Correct me??
I think the only real difference would be some ADs to the L1 tailboom that were factory correct on the L3?? Correct me??
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1 tailboom AD
Spot on, Bert, but no biggie.
Most L1's have an AD (I believe it's AD 96-18-05) requiring a visual inspection of the tailboom in the areas around the posts for the Dzus fasteners of the TR drive shaft cover, to be done every 50 flight hours. The L3 (and L1's that had the tailboom replaced) have different type posts and don't require this inspection. Including shut-down, start-up, removing and replacing the cover, and the actual inspection itself, it would usually take just over a half hour to complete.
Most L1's have an AD (I believe it's AD 96-18-05) requiring a visual inspection of the tailboom in the areas around the posts for the Dzus fasteners of the TR drive shaft cover, to be done every 50 flight hours. The L3 (and L1's that had the tailboom replaced) have different type posts and don't require this inspection. Including shut-down, start-up, removing and replacing the cover, and the actual inspection itself, it would usually take just over a half hour to complete.
Morris oxford?? You must be as old as me to remember them. In fact, my family owned one, and it had a serious tunnel.
No, in the 206 it is a safe haven for some cables and pipes, and is about 1-2" high. A bigger obstruction in the 206 centre seat is the broom cupboard, which takes away about 4" of kneeroom.
And don't bother asking me if I am now confused with the janitor's room.
No, in the 206 it is a safe haven for some cables and pipes, and is about 1-2" high. A bigger obstruction in the 206 centre seat is the broom cupboard, which takes away about 4" of kneeroom.
And don't bother asking me if I am now confused with the janitor's room.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Ranger at 20,000' ?!?
Hi rotor heads. Was working a jet-ranger on 135.15 this afternoon, doing some flight checks near Brize Norton. Nothing unusual there, but this guy requested a climb to FL200. Caused a bit of a stir in the radar room, "schurly some mistake", we thought. Anyway, said chopper got to FL200, after a while, did his stuff and went back down.
A quick Google has revealed some sites quoting 13,500ft as service ceiling, others 20,000ft.
My questions - Pressurised cabin? Oxygen needed, or not up there long enough? Any precautions taken against hypoxia / nose-bleeds? Why 2 different stats on the web, different marks / variants? Can I have a go (only live down the road)?
Anyway, gave us something other than airspace changes and wars to talk about.
Cheers,
Hippy.
A quick Google has revealed some sites quoting 13,500ft as service ceiling, others 20,000ft.
My questions - Pressurised cabin? Oxygen needed, or not up there long enough? Any precautions taken against hypoxia / nose-bleeds? Why 2 different stats on the web, different marks / variants? Can I have a go (only live down the road)?
Anyway, gave us something other than airspace changes and wars to talk about.
Cheers,
Hippy.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem for a JR to be there, big problem for a pilot though. The JR is certified to 20,000 below 3,000 lb, and to 13,500 ft at AUW of 3,200.
I have had a JRII at 16,500. It was still climbing well and flew well. Why? who knows, I was young and foolish?
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/aircra...-3_detail.html
I have had a JRII at 16,500. It was still climbing well and flew well. Why? who knows, I was young and foolish?
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/aircra...-3_detail.html
Last edited by 407 Driver; 20th Mar 2003 at 02:25.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B206 @ FL200 - no real problems
no requirements for pressurised cabin but oxygen required. (2 litres per minute from FL100 to FL180 and 4 litres per minute above - roughly)
TOT (turbine outlet temp.) is usually the limiting factor
The Jetranger can get much higher
no requirements for pressurised cabin but oxygen required. (2 litres per minute from FL100 to FL180 and 4 litres per minute above - roughly)
TOT (turbine outlet temp.) is usually the limiting factor
The Jetranger can get much higher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for the replies, very interesting. Would the O2 be plumbed-in to the aircraft, or are we talking personal bottles as used by mountaineers? Any type of CAA certification for O2 supply?
Curiosity killed the cat, but it's good to learn new stuff and always a good idea to know exactly what air crews are having to deal with.
Many thanks,
Hippy.
Curiosity killed the cat, but it's good to learn new stuff and always a good idea to know exactly what air crews are having to deal with.
Many thanks,
Hippy.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy?
Trust me, going up to 20,000 in a JR is NOT easy, sure it under ideal circumstances you might make it up there, but in a large number of instances it won't get even close, in any case getting up there could take forever.
Just last March 1st I went up to take picutures if the "LMT" (Large Millimeter Telescope www.lmtgtm.org) which is on top a 15,000 FTAMSL mountain, which is next to a 18,400 FT volcano, JRIII, +4%TQ powercheck J engine, 1 Pax, 33 Gallons, and OAT Zero degrees celsius, ISA +15, my results were not more than 50 KIAS Max, Max Cont Pwr, and not an inch above 15,500, it would just not climb anymore.
Anbody tells you it can easily go to FL200 has problably never done it or has done it under optimum circumstances in regards to GW, ISA, etc.
Pictures of the LMT below, the volcano next to it is the "Pico de Orizaba", 18,400 FTAMSL.
Oxygen? perhaps, but here's a thought, Peruvian AF pilots who fly over to the Peruvian Andes routinely would have a big grin in their faces if you told them you needed oxygen for a short flight up to 20,000
Just last March 1st I went up to take picutures if the "LMT" (Large Millimeter Telescope www.lmtgtm.org) which is on top a 15,000 FTAMSL mountain, which is next to a 18,400 FT volcano, JRIII, +4%TQ powercheck J engine, 1 Pax, 33 Gallons, and OAT Zero degrees celsius, ISA +15, my results were not more than 50 KIAS Max, Max Cont Pwr, and not an inch above 15,500, it would just not climb anymore.
Anbody tells you it can easily go to FL200 has problably never done it or has done it under optimum circumstances in regards to GW, ISA, etc.
Pictures of the LMT below, the volcano next to it is the "Pico de Orizaba", 18,400 FTAMSL.
Oxygen? perhaps, but here's a thought, Peruvian AF pilots who fly over to the Peruvian Andes routinely would have a big grin in their faces if you told them you needed oxygen for a short flight up to 20,000
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 20th Mar 2003 at 19:37.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly nice pictures. Makes me want to see someting of Mexico other than TJ or Rosarita beach.
I think the Regs have something to say about high flights. At least here in the states there would be a mandatory requirement for Oxygen and if my airspace memory serves me, I do believe the Aircraft should be filed as IFR. That would also require the aircraft to be IFR equipped. Expensive in a B206. Interesting to find out if someone gave this guy some heartburn over his flight.
Sounds like a fun ride down though....
I think the Regs have something to say about high flights. At least here in the states there would be a mandatory requirement for Oxygen and if my airspace memory serves me, I do believe the Aircraft should be filed as IFR. That would also require the aircraft to be IFR equipped. Expensive in a B206. Interesting to find out if someone gave this guy some heartburn over his flight.
Sounds like a fun ride down though....