Bell 206: JetRanger and LongRanger

[206 jock]

Thanks: the battery and fuel spray patterns are good ideas. The battery is only 2 years old (NiCad), but I've had lead acid ones that have lasted much less time before now.

I'm no engineer, but the problem to me seems to be that fuel is going in as it should, and if it lights off as you crack it, the temp barely rises to the yellow line. So my supposition is that the fuel is still flowing in normally, but for whatever reason its not igniting - hence my thought that it's a problem with spark not fuel. If the start is not good, the temp rises to nearly 900 degrees - I assume fuel is still pouring in and when it lights, it's burning that extra second worth of fuel (c29ml??) too.

Not just one pilot: two of us fly the machine regularly and both see it.

[zohar]

same problem

I have a JR 206BIII and I'm experiencing the same problem for the past 2 years. I press the start button wait till 15% open my throttle and i start counting 1 2 3 seconds and then it fires up TOT between 850 - 870.

We swap every single component including the FCU and still the same problem, i called Rolls-Royce and they send me a field technician right away.

After 8 starts he removed the fuel nozzle to take a quick peek inside.
The conclusion was that the COMBUSTION LINER is too far in.

The recommendation was to remove the 1st stage nozzle shield + Combustion Liner + Outer Combustion Case and send it to the shop where they can stack them up and compare with another set.



i will have the results next week.

keep you posted

Zohar

[Tickle]

What kind of 206 is this?

There's a YouTube video that can be seen here of what looks like a civilian Kiowa:



Note the unusual windscreen treatment and the thick / solid tail rotorshaft cowling, plus the upturned exhausts.

I was wondering, is there an official name for this model, or a company that does it? Never seen it before.

[FH1100 Pilot]

It can be confusing. That's not a civilian ship per se, but a "public use" aircraft. Here in the U.S., Public Use is a sort of "in-between" category in which a military helicopter can be given an N-number registration and used by law enforcement or other public agencies. The interesting thing about "public use" aircraft is that they are not constrained in operation by the FAR's that we actual, genuine civilian aircraft must follow.

The aircraft in question is a demilitarized OH-58 operated by one of Florida's numerous sheriff's departments. Looks like an OH-58C, but I'm not really up on my Army models. It has an odd mix of components in the drivetrain, from the military (i.e. olive drab) push-pull tubes to the civilian-looking mast and grips. Looks like civilian tail rotor blades too. Then again, you can never tell. There are shops that specialize in converting such aircraft from military to public use. Who knows what components get stuck on in the transition?

Someone once told me that OH-58C's *can* be converted to civilian - or Normal - category, but not the earlier -58's. Don't know why, or if that's even true. Doesn't matter though. By the time you did the conversion, the cost would be close to what a "real" 206 would go for in today's market.

[Gomer Pylot]

BlenderPilot is correct about the high-altitude t/r problems, if the high-altitude tail rotor hasn't been installed. The tail rotor on the straight L was just about adequate. Put the same rotor on an L1, with more power, and it's getting flaky. Add a C30 engine, in an L3, and it's less than adequate. Make it an L3 Increased Horsepower, or an L4, and it's dangerous. Keep on adding horsepower without increasing the tail rotor or the arm, and you'll eventually run out of tail rotor authority. The high-altitude tail rotor should be required on L3s as well as L4s, and I think it's criminal of Bell to ignore the problem.

[CyclicRick]

I have to heartily agree with the last post (no bugle please). I've run out of pedal and lost TRA a couple of times in an L3 especially when fairly heavy mostly during film/photo work when things get slow and tight. Dreadfully weak TR, I'm really surprised that they haven't tackled this way before now. Have a look at the 407, the TR didn't grow with that model either by the look of it
Rick

[blackhand]

I've run out of pedal and lost TRA a couple of times in an L3

L1 C30P and L3 operate in PNG to fairly high altitudes.
Can get into 10 to 11 thousand feet with upto 2 X 200Litre drums of fuel on the line without LTE occurring.
Suggest you get TR control rigging checked for full left travel, carry out PAC to ensure engine is performing, perhaps assess your technique.

Have a look at the 407, the TR didn't grow with that model either by the look of it

mmmmm perhaps you would like to have another look yourself, I'm looking at S.No 538xx and it has a completely different TR hub and blade assembly from the 206 series

Put the same rotor on an L1, with more power, and it's getting flaky. Add a C30 engine, in an L3, and it's less than adequate.

The L has a smaller TR than the standard L1 which inturn has a smaller TR diam than the L1C30P ( ASI or PHI STC) and L3.

Cheers
Blackhand

[Saint Jack]

What kind of 206 is this?

Another tell-tale sign that this is a non-commercial model is the absense of tail rotor gearbox fairings.

[BlenderPilot]

DTibbals53
Blender wrote: "at High DA's I would much rather go on the L3 as the L4 gets a little dangerous with the TR situation."

I think you have that reversed. The High Altitude TR is the fix for the LTE problem inherent with the L-1/L-3.

It is a bit more sensitive than the L-3 tail rotor, but I much prefer having the authority.

JMHO

Dear DT,

What I meant is that I WITHOUT the High Altitude Tail Rotor Kit, which is OPTIONAL on the L3 and L4, at altitude, say 10K DA, I would rather be in an L3 over an L4, even if the latter has more power.

The L4 has more power, but at altitude you cannot use it safely as the TR does not have enough authority to counteract torque at high power settings, if you are in an L4 say at 8,000 feet with a DA of 10 or 11 thousand, you can be pulling around 75-80% torque at a hover, but you will have the pedal about an inch or less from the stop, imagine in this situation what would happen if you takeoff from an elevated helipad and pull just a little more power?

You will spin! and have no way to stop the spin other than reducing power, or diving for airspeed! I really hate that!!! So that is why I prefer the L3 over the L4 even if the L3 has less power, it's just more controllable.

Unfortunately the most L4's do not have the High Altitude Tail Rotor Kit installed, since it's an expesive option which you don't get to enjoy unless you fly at altitude.

You mentioned that the optional Kit is Bells solution to the L1 and L3, but it's more for the L3 or L4 and it makes no sense to be installed on the L1, because the L1 has little power thus the TR can handle the job given, since there is less torque to counteract.

Regards

[DTibbals53]

Blender

Blender Pilot,

I will buy that explanation, with one exception.

You stated: "You mentioned that the optional Kit is Bells solution to the L1 and L3, but it's more for the L3 or L4 and it makes no sense to be installed on the L1, because the L1 has little power thus the TR can handle the job given, since there is less torque to counteract."

In our company, the L-1s and L-3s have the same engines nowdays, and thus the problem persists in the entire L series. Doomed to the wild ride if attention is not adequately applied at the appropriate times.

Good conversation! Poor design!

d

[birrddog]

Comparisons between Various JetRanger and LongRanger models

Anyone know of a good source for comparisons between the various JetRanger and LongRanger models?

I am referring to things like nuances between the various models, operating costs, fuel burn, limitations, maintenance issues or anything else a prospective purchaser should consider.

If nothing like the above exists, I would appreciate any items I could put in a template and research. (I have access to the respective POH's from Bell for the basics).

Thanks in advance
Birrddog

[Choppersquad]

Agusta-westland publications AB206

AB 206 owners
has anyone received a request for new set of publications for maintenance manuals under the new agusta -westland company for the AB 206 .we are told the old AB manuals can not be used.the cost of replacement as follows

title f.m.ab206jriii/c20/c20j 3 years revision 366 euro plus base issue 104 euro
title ab206a/b-ipc 3 year revision 1,105.00 euro plus base issue 532 euro
title ab206a /b series-mm as same 1,039.00 plus base issue 519 euro

total for the above including shipment 3591.00
is this the same cost for bell 206 owners as the above seems very high.It is a cost we could do without ,are AB owners sharing manauls to reduse cost ??


Any comments
choppersquad.

[Saint Jack]

Comparisons between Various JetRanger and LongRanger models

birrddog: Perhaps a good place to start would be getting hold of the 'Product Data' books for each model you're considering. These are available from the Bell website (for current models only) and for the others you'll have to ask around for, your local Bell CSR and CSF will help you with this. These books have a wealth of information in them and will certainly get started.

If you're thinking of purchasing more than one of the 206 Series keep in mind that there is very little commonality in parts between the JetRanger and LongRanger and this includes the special tooling, particularly with the engines. Of course things like hardware are common and also avionics if you select carefully. However, if you have a JetRanger and a LongRanger you'll find yourself having to stock airframe and engine items for both types.

There are no real maintenance issues with either model and any reasonably competant mechanic will have no difficulty with them. Perhaps the only bugbear is accessibility to the rotor brake on the LongRanger otherwise they're fine.

Similarly, pilots have no difficulties crossing-over between models and perhaps the only thing they'll notice is the slight twitch at +/- 91 knots (increasing) in the LongRanger when the vertical fin effectiveness overcomes the lower-speed effectiveness of the auxiliary fins (on the ends of the horizontal stabilizer). Perhaps the most important thing a pilot has to remember in a LongRanger is to pull the L/H fuel boost pump circuit breaker after every flight - regardless of the battery switch position.

Oh, and one more thing, if the low-level fuel caution light illuminates in a LongRanger with an apparant ample amount of fuel indicated, believe the light NOT the guage.

[helipan]

B206 door diagram

Hi all,
just looking for a diagram or a photo to showing how to open the front and back doors of a Jet ranger from the inside (for a safety breifing board)
thanks in advance

[Saint Jack]

B206 door diagram

Helipan: You'll need to be more specific. The early JetRangers had 'non-slamable' doors that, from the inside, had to be held in the closed position while twisting the handle to lock them. Later JetRangers (sorry, I can't remember the S/N break) had 'slamable' doors that, again from the inside, could be pulled (slammed) closed and then push down on the lock/unlock lever to lock.

For both types of doors DO NOT allow people to slam them with the handle/lever in the locked position

[helipan]

Thanks Saint Jock,
I now know why i have a diagram thats got nothing to do with the early Jet Ranger,
It is the one with the doors that you need to turn the handles to close the doors.
From memory: in the front I think they turn clockwise to close and anticlockwise to open. with the back its the other way.....?

[Saint Jack]

B206 door diagram

helipan: I've been in the front and back seats of early JetRangers a million times (well, a lot anyway) and I simply don't remember the 'D' shaped handles operating in the opposite sense between front and rear. I'll be visiting a operator later in October who have some early 206's and I'll look out for this. Amazing isn't it, you think you know an aircraft well (I've had it on my licenced for 34 years) and something like this comes up and stumps you.

Perhaps the best way to get a diagram will be to go through the MM or IPC and pick the best one/s. There will be a page which shows the decals associated with the handles, i.e. the 'arrows' for correct direction plus 'lock' and 'unlock'. They are in place aren't they? They do get ereased and this is the kind of thing (mandatory/safety markings) that surveyors and auditors like to pounce on. Good luck

[FH1100 Pilot]

Ahh, Bell logic. Let's talk about doors.

Early JR doors certainly are "slammable" in a sense. If the outside handle is pulled out to the detent, you *should* be able to push the door closed and have it latch without having to do anything else. Then you push the outside handle in, or secure the inside handle to the horizontal position and awaaaaay you go!

However, as the airframe ages and the doors bend and linkages go out of adjustment, they don't all work that way.

From the inside, it gets confusing. Most people do turn the D-ring to the fully-unlatched position to get the door to close - which usually means they have to try a couple of times. Slam it harder this time! Reason is because if they are sitting right next to the door it is hard to get the proper leverage on it, even with the wedge windows. And! Pulling while holding the handle in even a slightly locked position will prevent the door from latching. So most passengers turn the handle while closing the door. But which way!

I tell my passengers (back seat and front) to "Lift the REAR of the handle to open the door." That works. Nevermind the clockwise/anti-clockwise stuff. It'll just confuse them. Because the left and right sides are different. On the left side you turn clockwise to open. On the right side you turn counter-clockwise to open. Does that make ANY sense? Nope. But that's our Bell Helicopter Corp. (The front and back doors on the same side work the same way, to clear up a bit of confusion in the preceding couple of posts.)

Later B-models did away with the D-ring. Instead, Bell mounted a little grab handle at about mid-point fore-and-aft on the door. Theoretically, you left the latch handle in the "open" position (at the detent), then pulled the door closed with the grab handle, then latched the door completely. (Bell added a second, upper pin to the door around this point, but the upper pin is completely retracted with the latch handle at the open detent and only comes into play when the handle is fully closed.)

Certain later model 206B's I flew at PHI had both the pull-handle *and* D-rings. Belt and suspenders!

Oh, and another bit of trivia about the old D-ring latches (and the non-D-ring latches too): They WILL open and unlatch the door if you turn them the "wrong" way. How many other 206B pilots have shut down and then opened their back doors only to see the D-ring turned wrong-way-round and at some wierd angle? I certainly have. Use enough force and you can open the door whichever way you turn the handle.

Solution? There is no solution. I never let my passengers "hot-load" themselves. Me, I get out and load them (yes, even with the engine running and yes I know that's a subject for another thread). With the door still open, I *show* them how the inside door latch works. "Open. Closed. To open it, lift up on the BACK of the handle. See? Got it? Good." They still screw it up sometimes because people are stupid and have "more important" things to worry about than some arcane aircraft bullcrap.

Oh, and by the way, when you're sitting beside the door you cannot see those cute little instructional decals Bell many people put on the door to tell passengers how to open it. The decal should more properly be on the bulkhead between the front and back seats, right in front of that particular passenger. And there should be two of them, one for each side.

Aren't 206's great?

[Saint Jack]

B206 door diagram

FH1100 Pilot: Yes, all that and more. Early JetRangers did not have rain gutters above the doors (although they were standard on Agusta models from No. 1) and when it rained whichever shoulder was nearest the door got soaked. These early models also had the cabin fresh air intake at the front of the transmission fairing and louvres above the front occupants. Again when it rained your other shoulder also got soaked. If the transmission deck wasn't sealed properly, the rainwater could seep into the circuit breaker panel with interesting results.

For those out there that really, really remember the early 206A's you'll recall the retractable handle in the vertical fin to assist ground handling and the early main rotor masts that had a increased diameter just below the hub that was to have been splined to accept a stabilizer bar like the Model 47 (early flight tests showed it wasn't necessary). How about the mechanical, yes mechanical voltage regulators.

Yup, aren't 206's great?

[FH1100 Pilot]

LOL, Saint Jack, you must be as old as me! I'd forgotten about a lot of that stuff. Like the retractable ground handling handle in the fin! Invented obviously before they thought up the high-skid gear. Anyone else ever taken a stinger to the nuts?

If the transmission deck wasn't sealed properly, the rainwater could seep into the circuit breaker panel with interesting results.

Heyyyy, mine *still* does that! I have never - ever - flown a 206 in rain that did not leak on me somewhere. First time I saw water dripping *through* a circuit breaker (which was a long time ago) was...umm..."mildly disturbing." Now, not so much. It's a 206.