Bell 417
Bell 417?
Right after Eurocopter comes out with a single engien EC-135.Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agusta are not exactly busting a gut to product 119s. They have built 24 so far and I can find at least a couple for sale on the web.
But Bell are pretty desparate to find something which sells right now in the civil market, so maybe it is true?
But Bell are pretty desparate to find something which sells right now in the civil market, so maybe it is true?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As soon as the clowns in R&D at Fort Worth get some fresh pieces of paper out and start to design something new without tracing over some blueprints that are over thirty years old, maybe then we can start to take them seriously. Like have you seen the back end of the JRX yet? A handfull of screws and twenty minutes just to have a good look at the TRGB.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: oceanside
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what bell needs to do is basically a knockoff ec-120 with a pw 209, metal fuselage, with bell quality doors, and then you would have something to sell. concerning the 417, were they possibly confusing this with the bell 210.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it was me you heard talking about the "417". I learned of the idea from a flight test report on the 427 over at Aviation International News Online, story here:
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/Pi...r_bell427.html
The following is from the above story:
"In the meantime, there could be a side-step in Bell product evolution. Emblin gave a hint of one model that may be down the road when he said, "The normal evolution at Bell has been to add an engine to a single-engine helicopter to create a twin. But the twin-engine aspect of the 407 didn’t really pan out and we ended up creating a whole new fuselage for the 427. Some of us sitting on the sidelines have thought, ‘Hey, we really have a winner fuselage here, why don’t we go backward to a single?’ All you need is a good, powerful engine."
After having a close look at Bell’s new light twin, a single-engine derivative of the 427 doesn’t seem that preposterous."
Emblin being Eric Emblin, Senior Test Pilot at BHTI.
Hey, it might work. From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers (which I don't buy for a minute, might I add
and a single engined 8 place chopper, with a big, open, flat floor and a new design (the 427 may look like classic Bell, but a quick overlook of the Product Data Book/ production pictures and you can tell its different in construction) might be a winner. They've somehow crammed over 200 gallons of fuel in the 427, and if you could get a powerful, efficent single engine up top (new, bigger Allison 250 maybe?), we could see 500 mile ranges and 5 hour endurances...
What do you guys think?
Mike
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/Pi...r_bell427.html
The following is from the above story:
"In the meantime, there could be a side-step in Bell product evolution. Emblin gave a hint of one model that may be down the road when he said, "The normal evolution at Bell has been to add an engine to a single-engine helicopter to create a twin. But the twin-engine aspect of the 407 didn’t really pan out and we ended up creating a whole new fuselage for the 427. Some of us sitting on the sidelines have thought, ‘Hey, we really have a winner fuselage here, why don’t we go backward to a single?’ All you need is a good, powerful engine."
After having a close look at Bell’s new light twin, a single-engine derivative of the 427 doesn’t seem that preposterous."
Emblin being Eric Emblin, Senior Test Pilot at BHTI.
Hey, it might work. From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers (which I don't buy for a minute, might I add
and a single engined 8 place chopper, with a big, open, flat floor and a new design (the 427 may look like classic Bell, but a quick overlook of the Product Data Book/ production pictures and you can tell its different in construction) might be a winner. They've somehow crammed over 200 gallons of fuel in the 427, and if you could get a powerful, efficent single engine up top (new, bigger Allison 250 maybe?), we could see 500 mile ranges and 5 hour endurances...What do you guys think?
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwinHueyMan
"From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers ..."
I'm glad that you don't buy the above suggestion, but where does this info really come from. What is it about twin-engined helicopters that makes them dreaded and hated by everybody?? Other than the over cost concious client, I fund it hard to believe why anybody would be so averse.......
Anybody out there got any ideas??
"From what I'm hearing over at rec.aviation.rotorcraft, twin engined helicopters are dreaded and hated by pilots, owners, mechanics and passengers ..."
I'm glad that you don't buy the above suggestion, but where does this info really come from. What is it about twin-engined helicopters that makes them dreaded and hated by everybody?? Other than the over cost concious client, I fund it hard to believe why anybody would be so averse.......
Anybody out there got any ideas??
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some selected excerpts:
"But single engines are cheaper to operate, more reliable-even if not more durable-and more comfortable."
"Single engines are cheaper and more reliable."
"Did I mention single engines are cheaper and more reliable?"
"Finally-I do EMS, and lot of hospital programs are hanging up the twins and going single engine. Single engines are cheaper and more reliable. My position is that they're safer too-a lot of hospitals, other operators, and the FAA seem to believe that, as well."
"There is a very good reason twin-engined light helicopters don't sell in the US. It's called economics. They have niche roles, but the niches are small & narrow."
"in our typical flying day the 427 [a twin] would not cut it."
My original questions about "where are the Bell 427s?" turned into a debate between Singles vs. Twins. Originally, there were a lot of good opinions from both sides of the spectrum, but lately its been mostly pro-single people. Much of the stuff they bring up makes complete sense, but some of them seem to miss the fact that a second engine can save you in some sticky situations.
I've only been in one helicopter that had an engine failure (abnormal readings from a recently replaced engine on a maintenance check flight), but am incredibly glad it was a twin engined helicopter (BK) as we were able to cruise on down to the local airport, fix it up, and get back going strong on 2 engines. The other option would have been to set down in the mountains just east of San Diego, had we been in a single, or at least a very hair raising race to the airport on a squirly looking engine.
By the way, I just looked it up... to all the people that said the 427 is not successful, they had 87 pre-orders before the first production ship was completed. I'm awaiting the current number of aircraft sold, but I'd imagine its higher than people think.
On to the topic again (hehe), I dont think the 119 is too popular because it is based off the "queen" of corporate helicopters. It's probably going to be hard to break that image of the A109 corporate ship when people look at the 119 for anything other than corporate. I'd imagine a "new single engined 8 place helicopter, with a new overall design proven on the twin engined stablemate, for ~ 2mil new" would turn plenty of heads.
Mike
"But single engines are cheaper to operate, more reliable-even if not more durable-and more comfortable."
"Single engines are cheaper and more reliable."
"Did I mention single engines are cheaper and more reliable?"
"Finally-I do EMS, and lot of hospital programs are hanging up the twins and going single engine. Single engines are cheaper and more reliable. My position is that they're safer too-a lot of hospitals, other operators, and the FAA seem to believe that, as well."
"There is a very good reason twin-engined light helicopters don't sell in the US. It's called economics. They have niche roles, but the niches are small & narrow."
"in our typical flying day the 427 [a twin] would not cut it."
My original questions about "where are the Bell 427s?" turned into a debate between Singles vs. Twins. Originally, there were a lot of good opinions from both sides of the spectrum, but lately its been mostly pro-single people. Much of the stuff they bring up makes complete sense, but some of them seem to miss the fact that a second engine can save you in some sticky situations.
I've only been in one helicopter that had an engine failure (abnormal readings from a recently replaced engine on a maintenance check flight), but am incredibly glad it was a twin engined helicopter (BK) as we were able to cruise on down to the local airport, fix it up, and get back going strong on 2 engines. The other option would have been to set down in the mountains just east of San Diego, had we been in a single, or at least a very hair raising race to the airport on a squirly looking engine.
By the way, I just looked it up... to all the people that said the 427 is not successful, they had 87 pre-orders before the first production ship was completed. I'm awaiting the current number of aircraft sold, but I'd imagine its higher than people think.
On to the topic again (hehe), I dont think the 119 is too popular because it is based off the "queen" of corporate helicopters. It's probably going to be hard to break that image of the A109 corporate ship when people look at the 119 for anything other than corporate. I'd imagine a "new single engined 8 place helicopter, with a new overall design proven on the twin engined stablemate, for ~ 2mil new" would turn plenty of heads.
Mike
Bell needs to quit using their belly buttons as peep holes....and throw the old Jetranger/Huey plans out the door and start from scratch and build a real helicopter. Despite the Bell handicap, maybe the AB-139 might prove to be a fresh breath of air.
If you ever sat a BO-105 next to a Jetranger and compared the difference in engineering.....you would understand my disappointment in the Jetranger series. Small insignificant things like seats, hydraulic systems, rotor blades, shafting, gearboxes, transmission mounts.....strength of structure.....in every case the Bell product is inferior.
Need I get too involved in suggesting the Bell 204/205/212/412/214 series has had a good run but it is time to move on to a new design. The 50's technology worked fine for almost fifty years but really....isn't it time for a new set of blueprints....things like decent pilot seats with a tilt feature....pilot doors that are worth a darn....transmissions that stay put when the aircraft crashes....remember the UH-60 rolling down Mt. Hood...would you like to have been in a Bell when that happened?
Wouldn't it be nice to see instrument panels centered in front of the pilot....air conditioning and heating systems that work....stabilization systems as standard.....true Cat A performance....tail rotors that will stay on the aircraft....tail booms that don't crack....a real four/five/six rotor system instead of the use of multiple two rotor systems. Heck, just to have a door latching system that will actually hold the door open ....jettisonable doors that actually work....windows that are big enough to be of some value. The list goes on....independent engines....enough of the combining gear box concept....love the old PT-6 but not the common gear box. I will take my BK or BO over the Bell line....at least I know the thing will stay together.
If you ever sat a BO-105 next to a Jetranger and compared the difference in engineering.....you would understand my disappointment in the Jetranger series. Small insignificant things like seats, hydraulic systems, rotor blades, shafting, gearboxes, transmission mounts.....strength of structure.....in every case the Bell product is inferior.
Need I get too involved in suggesting the Bell 204/205/212/412/214 series has had a good run but it is time to move on to a new design. The 50's technology worked fine for almost fifty years but really....isn't it time for a new set of blueprints....things like decent pilot seats with a tilt feature....pilot doors that are worth a darn....transmissions that stay put when the aircraft crashes....remember the UH-60 rolling down Mt. Hood...would you like to have been in a Bell when that happened?
Wouldn't it be nice to see instrument panels centered in front of the pilot....air conditioning and heating systems that work....stabilization systems as standard.....true Cat A performance....tail rotors that will stay on the aircraft....tail booms that don't crack....a real four/five/six rotor system instead of the use of multiple two rotor systems. Heck, just to have a door latching system that will actually hold the door open ....jettisonable doors that actually work....windows that are big enough to be of some value. The list goes on....independent engines....enough of the combining gear box concept....love the old PT-6 but not the common gear box. I will take my BK or BO over the Bell line....at least I know the thing will stay together.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not surprising that the old twin vs single contest has reared its head again. However, I am more concerned with the heavier commercial market rather than the civil market, so maybe my views are rather tainted.
Seems that everything boils down to cost in the end, but it is amazing how quickly a client can change his/her mind when you dump them rather unceremoniously in the back of nowhere when the only means of support fails.
As for twins being less reliable, this can of course depend on how they are being operated. There have been many occasions when a twin, particularly a light twin, has been loaded such that it can't maintain cruise at any height with one engine inop. All you have here is the equivalent of a single engine helicopter with "stretch glide" facility but with twice the probability of an engine failure.
Having said that, with the improved reliability of engines these days there is much to be said about singles, provided they are operated over areas from where rescue is feesible in the event of an engine failure.
Seems that everything boils down to cost in the end, but it is amazing how quickly a client can change his/her mind when you dump them rather unceremoniously in the back of nowhere when the only means of support fails.
As for twins being less reliable, this can of course depend on how they are being operated. There have been many occasions when a twin, particularly a light twin, has been loaded such that it can't maintain cruise at any height with one engine inop. All you have here is the equivalent of a single engine helicopter with "stretch glide" facility but with twice the probability of an engine failure.
Having said that, with the improved reliability of engines these days there is much to be said about singles, provided they are operated over areas from where rescue is feesible in the event of an engine failure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/general...ts/ex1101e.htm
This is the last month I can find a new 427 beeing exported from Canada serno 30 , ( 31 was exported as used in mar 2002) 30 aircraft sold over 2 years for an EH101 maybe be called a success but for a 3 Mill light twin it is a little dissapointing.
This is the last month I can find a new 427 beeing exported from Canada serno 30 , ( 31 was exported as used in mar 2002) 30 aircraft sold over 2 years for an EH101 maybe be called a success but for a 3 Mill light twin it is a little dissapointing.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the thread in r.a.r. indicated everybody hates twins, just owners. I would certainly have preferred to fly a twin when I was flying light ships, but the fact is that at least in the US the vast majority of light helicopters are single-engine, & cost drives that. Cost to acquire, & cost to fly and maintain. The owner isn't flying in it, & most of the customers aren't either, they're just SLF, or as we refer to them, breathing cargo or 'critters'.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give me a Bell 205 anyday. No one has made an a/c that competes with it. Sure there are a/c that can out lift it on the hook, but can you put the same load internally ?? I think not. I would like to see a newer generation engine in it though, say a GE T700. Fuel burn that is over 30% less, engine weighs less, more power. The 205 is a great a/c that is proven, and fairly easily maintained in the field. Besides I get paid by the hour, not the mile so I don't mind going a little more sedately. 
Besides it still has the best sounding rotor system in the world !!! You just can't beat that sound !!!
TwinHueyMan I know from my perspective, I sure wouldn't want another "new" (read old) Allison. Ask anyone in western Canada about how the 250-C-47 is stacking up against it's competitors. It's got power, but it is not seeing the lifespan that it should have (so higher operating costs). The 250 design is almost 40 years old now, and there are many newer, and proven engines that are better. The PWC 200 series is about the same physical size, yet more powerful, and fuel burn is less (per hp that is).
Cheers
Randy_G
Besides it still has the best sounding rotor system in the world !!! You just can't beat that sound !!! TwinHueyMan I know from my perspective, I sure wouldn't want another "new" (read old) Allison. Ask anyone in western Canada about how the 250-C-47 is stacking up against it's competitors. It's got power, but it is not seeing the lifespan that it should have (so higher operating costs). The 250 design is almost 40 years old now, and there are many newer, and proven engines that are better. The PWC 200 series is about the same physical size, yet more powerful, and fuel burn is less (per hp that is).
Cheers
Randy_G
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lost in thought
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell Bashing?
I see this thread (B-417) has taken a turn - but lets get back to a few things.
First, being somewhat involved, I think it's safe to say that Bell is NOT considering a single engine version of the 427. And it doesn't escape me that this thread was started by a Eurocopterian who was probably fishing
.
TwinHueyMan was correct that the 427 airframe may have the "Bell look,” but airframe wise, it is a completely different beast than the 206 or 407. For one, the 427 is a completely composite airframe, and I could go on forever from there – but I won’t.
The failing of the 427 is not in the power - it's got oodles of that, and the transmission is so over-designed, you could almost throw away the oil and fly all day. Its problem is that all that power is being beaten in to a rotor system that was really designed to lift an OH-58. The tweaks, tabs, and other such things they did to get more lift out of the blades did not pan out as expected – and Bell continues to work those issues. Don’t get me wrong... in the correct environment, that thing flies like the sports car of helicopters. But I don’t think Bell would entertain any investment in power changes until it - one way or another - gets more out of the rotor on that beast.
As for SASless and his Bell tirade, I think that one deserves a new thread. Do I dare accuse him of going from Brit Bashing to Bell Bashing and risk an equivalently eloquent put down? But let me at least say this..
If you are going to compare a JetRangers to BO105s and BK-117s, then include what you (or your boss) paid for them. It’s like comparing a BMW to a Ford Sedan. I’ll take a 206 or 407 over an R22 or R44 as well – which is about the same sort of comparison - but I don’t beat on Robi for the product they put out for the price.
I don’t understand your issue with the C-box. Yes it’s used in the 212/412, but then the 230, 430, and 427 do not. So it’s not like it’s endemic of Bell designs (as you seem to suggest.) Using a C-Box may not be engineering purity, but it certainly isn’t restrictive in those models. You hit the XMSN limits way before the C-box, and I’m not aware of short-shaft failure rates being a significant source of autorotations. So I don’t really understand your beef.
As far as the rest of your list, it seems to include every beef ever that has ever occurred in any Bell design in history. In the specific models you list, the 412-EP is the only one still in new manufacture. (I assume you are not holding Bell accountable for the 50-year-old technology it sold forty, or even thirty years ago, so let's stick to the EP). By the way, stabilization IS standard on the 412-EP. And the 412-EP has no endemic tail rotor departures, tail boom cracks, etc. in the current design that I’m aware of. By the way, the air conditioning on those models isn't Bell’s – it’s a third party STC. And yes, the instrument panel position and the door latch designs are vestiges of the original Huey airframe.... Sorry.... But then again, not all Bells are that way either.
As far as Cat-A performance goes, you should see the A-SAR 412-EP we have here with FADEC PT6-T9s, and a 4-screen, full glass cockpit. The OEI performance would knock your socks off. I wish we could convince the powers-that-be that there is the market to bring that through FAA certification. ... Maybe you could help us convince them?
As far as the 412 goes, the old beast is hard to beat. She ain’t pretty, She ain’t the fastest, and she doesn’t have the best legs, but it just seems to hit "just the spot.” Big enough to do the job, but small enough to set down in a "Miami intersection". In spite of all the people who have predicted that the 412 will stop selling as soon as model-X hits the market, (Including Bell when it introduced the AB-139 as part of the "Bell Agusta Aircraft Company") people just keep wanting 412s and buying them. It’s like what C-130s are to cargo planes in that regard.
So...Should Bell stop making 412s in favor of the AB-139? (It's got 5 blades, an articulated rotor, and everything you ask for for a hell of a lot less than the cost difference between a BK-117 and a 206.) Should Bell stop making JetRangers and 407s in favor if an EC-120 knock off? (As chopperdr suggests), or would that be about as smart as when VW stopped production of the Beetle in favor of the Golf?
Or maybe keep the best of the old (with some improvement), add some new, and dump the rest.
I'd give you my opinion, but then again - I'm biased.
First, being somewhat involved, I think it's safe to say that Bell is NOT considering a single engine version of the 427. And it doesn't escape me that this thread was started by a Eurocopterian who was probably fishing
. TwinHueyMan was correct that the 427 airframe may have the "Bell look,” but airframe wise, it is a completely different beast than the 206 or 407. For one, the 427 is a completely composite airframe, and I could go on forever from there – but I won’t.
The failing of the 427 is not in the power - it's got oodles of that, and the transmission is so over-designed, you could almost throw away the oil and fly all day. Its problem is that all that power is being beaten in to a rotor system that was really designed to lift an OH-58. The tweaks, tabs, and other such things they did to get more lift out of the blades did not pan out as expected – and Bell continues to work those issues. Don’t get me wrong... in the correct environment, that thing flies like the sports car of helicopters. But I don’t think Bell would entertain any investment in power changes until it - one way or another - gets more out of the rotor on that beast.
As for SASless and his Bell tirade, I think that one deserves a new thread. Do I dare accuse him of going from Brit Bashing to Bell Bashing and risk an equivalently eloquent put down? But let me at least say this..
If you are going to compare a JetRangers to BO105s and BK-117s, then include what you (or your boss) paid for them. It’s like comparing a BMW to a Ford Sedan. I’ll take a 206 or 407 over an R22 or R44 as well – which is about the same sort of comparison - but I don’t beat on Robi for the product they put out for the price.
I don’t understand your issue with the C-box. Yes it’s used in the 212/412, but then the 230, 430, and 427 do not. So it’s not like it’s endemic of Bell designs (as you seem to suggest.) Using a C-Box may not be engineering purity, but it certainly isn’t restrictive in those models. You hit the XMSN limits way before the C-box, and I’m not aware of short-shaft failure rates being a significant source of autorotations. So I don’t really understand your beef.
As far as the rest of your list, it seems to include every beef ever that has ever occurred in any Bell design in history. In the specific models you list, the 412-EP is the only one still in new manufacture. (I assume you are not holding Bell accountable for the 50-year-old technology it sold forty, or even thirty years ago, so let's stick to the EP). By the way, stabilization IS standard on the 412-EP. And the 412-EP has no endemic tail rotor departures, tail boom cracks, etc. in the current design that I’m aware of. By the way, the air conditioning on those models isn't Bell’s – it’s a third party STC. And yes, the instrument panel position and the door latch designs are vestiges of the original Huey airframe.... Sorry.... But then again, not all Bells are that way either.
As far as Cat-A performance goes, you should see the A-SAR 412-EP we have here with FADEC PT6-T9s, and a 4-screen, full glass cockpit. The OEI performance would knock your socks off. I wish we could convince the powers-that-be that there is the market to bring that through FAA certification. ... Maybe you could help us convince them?
As far as the 412 goes, the old beast is hard to beat. She ain’t pretty, She ain’t the fastest, and she doesn’t have the best legs, but it just seems to hit "just the spot.” Big enough to do the job, but small enough to set down in a "Miami intersection". In spite of all the people who have predicted that the 412 will stop selling as soon as model-X hits the market, (Including Bell when it introduced the AB-139 as part of the "Bell Agusta Aircraft Company") people just keep wanting 412s and buying them. It’s like what C-130s are to cargo planes in that regard.
So...Should Bell stop making 412s in favor of the AB-139? (It's got 5 blades, an articulated rotor, and everything you ask for for a hell of a lot less than the cost difference between a BK-117 and a 206.) Should Bell stop making JetRangers and 407s in favor if an EC-120 knock off? (As chopperdr suggests), or would that be about as smart as when VW stopped production of the Beetle in favor of the Golf?
Or maybe keep the best of the old (with some improvement), add some new, and dump the rest.
I'd give you my opinion, but then again - I'm biased.