cpt hobbs

i am looking at both a 206 and the ec120 to buy for a business man to travel around ireland. Please express pros and cons for comparisson and your final choice. $1 mil budget. thanks.

SMOUFW

For 1 mil Aus dollars you could get two pretty good second hand Jetrangers-not to sure about the price of a used ec-120- would imagine though a little bit more.

To compare them operationally-if you looked up the word reliable in the dictionary you would find a photo of a jetranger-they just keep going. Ofcousre you'll always find the knockers but over a ten year period we operated up to 4 206's and other than the routine maintenance I can remember a couple of t/r chip lights, 1 eng chip and a couple of gauge failures.And i'm talking about 600-800 hrs per year per machine. The other consideration is support and parts....do your homework there....again I don't know what eurocopter/Bell have in Ireland.

I was fortunate to operate a EC-120 on trial for around 3 months and in that time had great feedback from pilots and passengers. Someone with a lot more time on the ec would give you a better appreciation however I loved flying the machine and the pax loved it. Bigger windows and a lot more comfortable.If your planning to have a full ship expect a lot of negative comments about the back middle seat in the jetranger...it's a F#$%^. Every day people would complain about having to sit there. We called it the TFC,(Thanks for coming) seat. Atleast in the EC everyone gets a great seat and no arguements.

The luggage compartment on the ec is little more generous than the jetranger however as all 206 drivers know it's amazing what you can fit in a jetranger boot.

Thats my 3 cents worth-to answer your question if it's just you and/or your pilot criusing around Ireland with regards to price take the jetranger option-maybe a few ec operators could add some pointers to even the debate.......Have you considered a R44?

SMO

blade771

This could start quite a debate!!

Would probably go for 206 myself, however do agree that the 120 has better alround visibility for the pax however have heard some stories of problems with the 120 i.e. c of g - this may have been corrected now.

Otherwise both lovely machines.

KikoLobo

i fown both of them, both as a pass and as a pilot, 206 its a work horse. True ec is more confortable for the pass, but 206 its so reliable and its so a noble machine and a joy to fly. Its slower though but its a very safe 'the safest single engine aircraft in the world' and it keeps its record for a long time. Maintainance its not hard and well documented, your mechanic can do a lot more to it than on the EC to fix it on the field.

More technology on the EC, quiter for sure, but the penalty for it its power. Although jet rangers are not a loader heli, it can carry more weight and be more forgiving in altitude and hot wx.

Its just my POV.
I flown both of them to see what i would buy, and got a 206. Ohh, operation cost is also lower. (at least in mx)

headsethair

The budget is $1m - US I assume ? That won't get much of a 120......

rotornut

Do a search on EC-120. There have been a few threads on their maintenance and reliability problems.

Thomas coupling

It's not just about operating costs etc, is it.
We are living in the 21st century now and things such as duty of care/risk assessments etc have to be considered.
I would seriously also look at crashworthiness issues.
The 206 has that woefully inferior tail rotor authority issue hanging over it too.

On a separate note: bear in mind the spares and servicing scene.

A helo sat on the deck waiting 4 days for a replacement part for instance, is just scrap metal

and Tompkins

A few other things to consider:

Autorotation - ever seen an EC120 auto from about 10-15' AGL? Talk about slamming you into the ground! You'll find the 206 offers much more margin than the EC120 due to the nature of the rotor system. Much more inertia in the 206.

Useful Load - Don't get hung up in EC telling you that the 120 has a greater AUW. Once you load it with the necessary equipment and fuel to fly it away, you'll have more UL in a JetRanger with the same equipment. This is especially easy to see when comparing Bell and EC's HOGE and HIGE charts from their technical specs. You'll find a tight race, but I suspect EC would tell you differently.

Having flown in both, I would not take an EC120 above 110-kts. It seemed like everything was about to shake loose in the cabin.

I'd take the JetRanger.

belly tank

Thomas Coupling wrote:
"The 206 has that woefully inferior tail rotor authority issue hanging over it too."

Thomas...in my limited experience in helicopters to date which includes 1000+ hours in jetrangers ive never had any problem with tail rotor authority..and ive done most hovering ops that require alot of pedal....treat it right and think about what your doing and you should never have any tail rotor authority / lte or whatever they call it tommorow problem

Aesir

Belly Tank..

That is exactly what I was going to say, you just beat me to it!

This LTE "Problem" on B206 is a non issue.

IHL

Belly Tank & Aesir:

I disagree. I know several pilots that have experienced it. It is real and it is out there but it can be managed.

When I fly a Jet Ranger I am always very cognizant of wind direction and the conditions that can lead to LTE.

belly tank

IHL,

I didnt say that it its not an issue, maybe my wording was a bit obscure, however as you say with proper management and decision making it is overcome.

and i think this applies to most if not all aspect of flying.

cheers!

leemind

headsethair - US$1m ~ Ģ570k

You'll easily get an EC120 for that money. Quick search of the 'net or look in Helimart found several. e.g. 2002 with 1,000 hrs for EUR870k (Ģ558k)

Thomas coupling

Belly Tank / Aesir:

Ignorance is bliss....I suggest you get to know your a/c a little more:

NickLappos said:


posted 3rd October 2005 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rotorboy,

In an LTE study I did about 7 years ago, based on worldwide accidents of all helos, using four different data bases, this is what it showed:

95% of all LTE accidents involve Bell 206 models.

Virtually 100% of all LTE accidents involve Bell helicopters (one Robbie in UK was reported as LTE, but was probably over pitching).

My conclusion was that the inadequate size of the Bell 206 tail rotor was the principal cause of its LTE woes.
A second finding is that all tail rotor authority events were being called LTE because the marketing campaign conducted by Bell was effective on removing the heat from their design.

LTE really does not exist, it is a label used to blame the pilot when a marginal helicopter loses yaw control within its approved envelope. That does not mean that a 206 can be milked by an experienced pilot to not lose tail authority.

LTE cannot be experienced by any helo built to modern standards (larger tail rotor). It is impossible to get LTE in a Black Hawk, Apache, S76, H-500, EH-101, Lynx, etc because they have adequate tail rotors.

John Eacott

TC,

Beg to differ: maybe with the small tail rotor, but the 206 with the later tail rotor is quite manageable, and we operate frequently hot and high.

I'd be making more of an issue of the EC120's low inertia main rotor system, and the R22-like autorotation characteristics I'd have grave reservations using an EC120 for low level operations that wouldn't cause any concern in a 206, because I'm not sure that I'd get away with a survivable auto. Apparently the factory pilots prefer to run on around 40-50kts in the 120, maybe for a good reason!

belly tank

Thomas Coupling wrote,

"Ignorance is bliss....I suggest you get to know your a/c a little more:"

I think i have reasonable knowledge of My aircraft the 206 in this case, ive done most ops that require the use of alot of pedal mainly OGE hover work etc etc hot and as high as you can get here in australia!. and as i said in my limited experience on Jetrangers 1000 + hrs on type to date ive never had a problem or accident, and as i mentioned before its managable if you treat your aircraft with respect it deserves.

so your statement above is totally ignorant about the fact you should give a bit more credit to your peers before you make assumptions on their ability

B Sousa

IF you have a Million to play with and look around just a bit I think you can get a pretty nice B206L4 and have some spare change for cockpit toys.
Give it some thought.

Aesir

Thomas coupling..

Ohhohh.. If Nick said it then it MUST be true


The original question was:

In my opinion the perceived LTE "Problem" of the 206 is not an issue in choosing which aircraft to buy! If properly flown itīs not a problem!!

Like was said for $1 mil you can get a nice 206L4 which is certainly a much superior aircraft to the EC-120.

I have a friend who operates EC-120 and from talking to him he seems to have unusual problems with parts availability and cost Donīt get me started there..few months ago he had to replace the flashing beacon at a cost of $9.000.- The whole thing had to be replaced as a unit, not possible to change the bulb!

He flyīs his EC-120 about 350 to 400 hrs a year. I fly my AB206B a 1971 model with.. yes you guessed it, the small diameter tail rotor.. I fly about 150 hrs a year and guess who takes more money to the bank after all costs have been figured in? I do.

Needless to say his EC-120 is for sale.

When comparing the two EC-120 & B206 one should consider the autorotative characteristics as well of both aircraft. Since they are single engine I would much rather be in a B206 following engine failure, both aircraft do have engine failures like any motor vehicles and the outcome of such a failure will be more likely to be succesful in the B-206.

Unfortunately itīs difficult to do a "Study" of succesful outcomes of engine failure landings comparing aircraft since many countries do not require any reports to be made if the landing was succesful with no damage.

Here is my suggestion for the original poster:

"Be Smart, Fly Bell"

Thomas coupling

Belly up: I wouldnt brag about a 1000hrs on type if I were you. There are people on here who have flown that on type in only 18 months, that is not a lot of experience
And you are not my peer...you can't even spell Chief Pilot in your profile never mind act like one


Aesir et al:

Join the real world eh? You can't keep flying a 40 yr old design forever....one has to move on and invest in technology with all its merits. Safety is the industry mantra now.

Aviation news comments

Just another view..................................

Aesir: interesting web site.

Dynamic Component

I have a few hours on the EC120 and 206.Each has its own role.For pax work I would choose the 120.For anything else I would choose the 206.I would prefer a 206L4. Just keep in mind that you cant load 4 adults and pilot and use all the baggage space in the 120.

TC- who pis*ed in your porridge? SO what if belly tank can't spell. And they are entitled to their own opinions.(I can't spell either )