Bell 205 UH-1H performance
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheMonk
Sorry it takes me so long to get back. The fuel cost at $5.50 gallon is an average of what I was paying last summer. I paid up to $6.15/gallon! I use 85 gallons/hour as a rough estimate on fuel usage for the aircraft, i.e. a standard UH-1H with a T53-L-13 engine. Of course if you do a lot of OGE hovering the fuel flow is much higher. The problem with going to a -703 or -17 engine is that the fuel flow is higher and reduces range, endurance, etc., though the high altitude hover performance is better. You have to make up for the loss in time by carrying more fuel in an aux tank or just refuel more or carry less.
Tail rotors on standard UH-1H's are pretty weak and anyone who flies or has flown one much has had some not so pretty experiences,especially at high DA's with a load. The original Bell 205's had this problem and were all retrofitted with a tractor arrangement and then later a 212 tail rotor system. I don't know what the AB205 has on its tail.
The Temsco/Dyncorp project uses a Bell 205A with the 212 tail rotor and more importantly a P&W PT6C-67D single engine. The engine uses around 15% less fuel and holds the power better with increasing altitude. The engine is FADEC controlled. I flew a UH-1H with the P&W engine and a tail rotor enhacement kit for quite a while a few years back and it was a real horse! The Border Patrol has one now as well as the Georgia Department of Forestry.
One last thing that needs to be said; the differences in the UH-1H and the Bell205(and presumably the AB205) are pretty well documented in their respective flight manuals. They are not the same, and the most dangerous difference in my opinion is that the UH-1H has no WAT(Weight Altitude Temperature) limit chart which leads one to falsely believe that their is no problem with a standard Huey at altitude - the chart is not a Mil requirement. If you operate a standard UH-1H or one that has a bigger engine or better tail rotor, you ought to look at the Bell 205 manual and the WAT chart contained in it. It's a real eye opener, severely limits the (WAT) altitude for take off and landing, and indicates that once an engine fails that the chances of making a successful landing at high altitude gets to be pretty bad. As a Huey driver with a lot of test experience, I would advise taking a hard look at the Bell 205A WAT chart and it associated HV diagram.
Sorry it takes me so long to get back. The fuel cost at $5.50 gallon is an average of what I was paying last summer. I paid up to $6.15/gallon! I use 85 gallons/hour as a rough estimate on fuel usage for the aircraft, i.e. a standard UH-1H with a T53-L-13 engine. Of course if you do a lot of OGE hovering the fuel flow is much higher. The problem with going to a -703 or -17 engine is that the fuel flow is higher and reduces range, endurance, etc., though the high altitude hover performance is better. You have to make up for the loss in time by carrying more fuel in an aux tank or just refuel more or carry less.
Tail rotors on standard UH-1H's are pretty weak and anyone who flies or has flown one much has had some not so pretty experiences,especially at high DA's with a load. The original Bell 205's had this problem and were all retrofitted with a tractor arrangement and then later a 212 tail rotor system. I don't know what the AB205 has on its tail.
The Temsco/Dyncorp project uses a Bell 205A with the 212 tail rotor and more importantly a P&W PT6C-67D single engine. The engine uses around 15% less fuel and holds the power better with increasing altitude. The engine is FADEC controlled. I flew a UH-1H with the P&W engine and a tail rotor enhacement kit for quite a while a few years back and it was a real horse! The Border Patrol has one now as well as the Georgia Department of Forestry.
One last thing that needs to be said; the differences in the UH-1H and the Bell205(and presumably the AB205) are pretty well documented in their respective flight manuals. They are not the same, and the most dangerous difference in my opinion is that the UH-1H has no WAT(Weight Altitude Temperature) limit chart which leads one to falsely believe that their is no problem with a standard Huey at altitude - the chart is not a Mil requirement. If you operate a standard UH-1H or one that has a bigger engine or better tail rotor, you ought to look at the Bell 205 manual and the WAT chart contained in it. It's a real eye opener, severely limits the (WAT) altitude for take off and landing, and indicates that once an engine fails that the chances of making a successful landing at high altitude gets to be pretty bad. As a Huey driver with a lot of test experience, I would advise taking a hard look at the Bell 205A WAT chart and it associated HV diagram.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: on the road
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
came across this one last summer. what a beauty, UH-1H, -703, composite blades, strake, fast fin. looking at the load calc she was doing better than a ++, but she is restricted cat
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's ex-US military it will never be more than Restricted Category, according to the FAA. We had an ex Canadian CUH-1H for a while and could never get it in Restricted category because it was foreign military. Our best cert was Experimental- Exhibition. I used it for a couple of Chuck Norris movies.
Other interesting numbers on the 205A1 and derivatives is to have a look at the Power Off Landing Distances over a 50' obstacle. Being a Part 29 Transport category aircraft these numbers are in the RFM.
Used to have to do recurrent training of the local CAA inspector. Being an old ex mil guy he used to try and show me how you could put it down 0/0 in autorotation. I couldn't see his point as at any significant weight it wasn't going to happen so why bother practising it.
One of the better machines out there. I think they only made about ~ 350 or so commercial 205's.
Contrary to popular belief not all A-1's have dual hydraulics. Hydraulics off above ~ 40 knots is not noticeable in the cyclic. On the single hydraulic machines (from the fading grey matter only) it pays to check that the inboard strap fittings are set up to give you collective force neutral at about ~30 PSI.
Used to have to do recurrent training of the local CAA inspector. Being an old ex mil guy he used to try and show me how you could put it down 0/0 in autorotation. I couldn't see his point as at any significant weight it wasn't going to happen so why bother practising it.
One of the better machines out there. I think they only made about ~ 350 or so commercial 205's.
Contrary to popular belief not all A-1's have dual hydraulics. Hydraulics off above ~ 40 knots is not noticeable in the cyclic. On the single hydraulic machines (from the fading grey matter only) it pays to check that the inboard strap fittings are set up to give you collective force neutral at about ~30 PSI.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the air
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So looking that the image from sherpa of the UH-1H the tailrotor is on the the port side. So is the 205A1, fitted with a 212 tailrotor, would that be on the other side or also on the same side? And also a standard 205?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ja, the UH-1H has the tail rotor on the left side and the A1 is on the right. The A1 tailboom also has a 'boot' in the tail, accessed on the right hand side.
Just to try basically clear up the whole Huey thing, they started out as the Bell 204, the stubby Huey, which the military designated the UH-1A, and following variations were the UH-1B, UH-1C, UH-1E, and UH-1F. In that time somewhere came the 'extended cab' version, fitted with a -11, called by the military the UH-1D, and the -13 version, called the UH-1H.
Agusta at some point in time also built the Huey, and they were called Agusta-Bell 205's, and then Bell built civillian versions called the 205 A1. It can get quite confusing....
The Hueys can be upgraded with engines, transmissions, drivetrains etc to make them better. The UH-1H's tail rotor is not lekker so people often retrofit them with 212 bits, tractor tails, fast fins, composites etc. The most common fit is to put a 212 42 degree in, as the 205 gearbox needs to be inspected every 400 torque events, quite a mission if you are doing that every 2 days or so!
Just to try basically clear up the whole Huey thing, they started out as the Bell 204, the stubby Huey, which the military designated the UH-1A, and following variations were the UH-1B, UH-1C, UH-1E, and UH-1F. In that time somewhere came the 'extended cab' version, fitted with a -11, called by the military the UH-1D, and the -13 version, called the UH-1H.
Agusta at some point in time also built the Huey, and they were called Agusta-Bell 205's, and then Bell built civillian versions called the 205 A1. It can get quite confusing....
The Hueys can be upgraded with engines, transmissions, drivetrains etc to make them better. The UH-1H's tail rotor is not lekker so people often retrofit them with 212 bits, tractor tails, fast fins, composites etc. The most common fit is to put a 212 42 degree in, as the 205 gearbox needs to be inspected every 400 torque events, quite a mission if you are doing that every 2 days or so!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so, as far as I understand it, the weight limit is due to the transmission, so if you put a 212 transmission in a UH-1H it can lift more, as you have more torque to play with - about 54psi as opposed to 50psi. I figure it won't make much difference at altitude as you will be limited by N1 or EGT rather than Torque anyway.
Perhaps someone else will give you a definite answer.
Perhaps someone else will give you a definite answer.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is yes and no. For Restricted category the FAA will not raise the Gross weight on the H with the 212 gearboxes. Same helicopter in Public use with 212 trans is approved to 10,500 by Bell. Again it is only approved by Bell and not the FAA. It's called the huey II and it is not FAA approved.
