What about helicopters needs fixing?
heli fixes
Lu, all points well taken,but nothing is cheap in this world.I once had a discussion with the Chinook policy staff officers at a certain Air HQ which used to be on a hill in Wilts. about fitting a small radar to the a/c when they went back to Boeing to have the engine/airframes modified."Don`t need it,too heavy ,too expensive,can`t use it in battle,got excellent new nav gear,so we know where we are!" The radar is about the size of a large ostrich egg,evenC-172`s have them,good range and if used correctly can prevent bumping into "cumulo granitus".I suppose most N Sea helos have radar,so any comments from them? A little expense in the right direction may have saved the Machrihanish accident- so ,sometimes it pays to look out from the cat`s a**s and view the outside world..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some comments on the excellent responses above:
I have copied all the comments and will compare tham, cross plot them and generally bend and twist them until they prove what I want .
Seriously, I will use these answers as fodder, should I ever get a chance to again help develop a helicopter at Sikorsky (three so far has been a gift, could I wish for one more?)
I note lots of support for automatic parachutes to land safely if the rotor fails. There is an old joke about this from Boy Scout Days - the scoutmaster asked the young scout why he packed the eggs at the bottom of his pack, where they were likely to be crushed. The kid responded, "that way, when they break, they don't run all over everything!"
I would rather ask for a rotor design that was redundant enough so that even with failures, it wouldn't fail to do its job. That is my "parachute".
Regarding changes, costs and tradeoffs, I find that today's system in both Military and Civil development makes costs so high that we end up with too little innovation, and too much of samo-samo design. I wish it were less costly to develop and approve things, so that we could change them quickly and cheaply, and give you what you want.
Regarding safety, I wish we all would look at what actually brings us down, and not what could fail, and fix those problems. One poster above had the key when he asked for one big efficient engine that never failed, rather than two. We should try to specify the root cause of the problem or the worry, and not dictate a design.
Anyway, please keep this going, this is golden!!
I have copied all the comments and will compare tham, cross plot them and generally bend and twist them until they prove what I want .
Seriously, I will use these answers as fodder, should I ever get a chance to again help develop a helicopter at Sikorsky (three so far has been a gift, could I wish for one more?)
I note lots of support for automatic parachutes to land safely if the rotor fails. There is an old joke about this from Boy Scout Days - the scoutmaster asked the young scout why he packed the eggs at the bottom of his pack, where they were likely to be crushed. The kid responded, "that way, when they break, they don't run all over everything!"
I would rather ask for a rotor design that was redundant enough so that even with failures, it wouldn't fail to do its job. That is my "parachute".
Regarding changes, costs and tradeoffs, I find that today's system in both Military and Civil development makes costs so high that we end up with too little innovation, and too much of samo-samo design. I wish it were less costly to develop and approve things, so that we could change them quickly and cheaply, and give you what you want.
Regarding safety, I wish we all would look at what actually brings us down, and not what could fail, and fix those problems. One poster above had the key when he asked for one big efficient engine that never failed, rather than two. We should try to specify the root cause of the problem or the worry, and not dictate a design.
Anyway, please keep this going, this is golden!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
good article on MSNBC site about the microsoft jet that will sell for about 850K 6 seats . twin williams jets .
http://www.msnbc.com/news/779195.asp
Now if we could have a reliable all weather 6 pax helicopter that sold for that price who knows how many would be sold.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/779195.asp
Now if we could have a reliable all weather 6 pax helicopter that sold for that price who knows how many would be sold.
heli fixes
Thanks Shawn for that,I`ve just got into the saddle in a Jet-box,with bifocals,and its not the same as big Wessex/Sea-king gauges.Anyway ,why aren`t they a retrofit item? I`m still waiting for you to send me a copy of your new book!!(Big print I hope)..
Sycamore,
I'll lend you mine! Shades of the GM7B, lovely big R & Bearing display in the WIII, penny pinching HMG gave us a display smaller than a JetRanger's in the SK
Nick, from an operator's (and one who pays the bills) point of view:
1. Set in concrete DOC's. Unscheduled maintenance is the pits for budgeting, and how often, when the machine in question is a more sophisticated twin, is the UM required because of an AD or manufacturer's bulletin, nearly always at the operator's expense. Watch a car company go out of business expecting the customer pay for it's mistakes.
2. Purchase price to be all inclusive. Smaller helicopters come with such a basic fit, by the time it's ready to be commercially operated the machine often costs 20-30% more than base price.
3. Better overhaul times (I realise this is already being addressed, but this is a wish list).
4. Comfortable, crashworthy and adjustable seating throughout the aircraft. The paying customer has a right to some comfort, and a decent bit of baggage space wouldn't be a bad idea. As for ECU's, when was the last time you paid a $million + for a car without a heater, let alone an aircon
5. More robust transmission systems, less likely to cause grief and pain.
Many of my other "wishes" have been well covered. I especially like the idea of BMW designing the cockpit
I'll lend you mine! Shades of the GM7B, lovely big R & Bearing display in the WIII, penny pinching HMG gave us a display smaller than a JetRanger's in the SK
Nick, from an operator's (and one who pays the bills) point of view:
1. Set in concrete DOC's. Unscheduled maintenance is the pits for budgeting, and how often, when the machine in question is a more sophisticated twin, is the UM required because of an AD or manufacturer's bulletin, nearly always at the operator's expense. Watch a car company go out of business expecting the customer pay for it's mistakes.
2. Purchase price to be all inclusive. Smaller helicopters come with such a basic fit, by the time it's ready to be commercially operated the machine often costs 20-30% more than base price.
3. Better overhaul times (I realise this is already being addressed, but this is a wish list).
4. Comfortable, crashworthy and adjustable seating throughout the aircraft. The paying customer has a right to some comfort, and a decent bit of baggage space wouldn't be a bad idea. As for ECU's, when was the last time you paid a $million + for a car without a heater, let alone an aircon
5. More robust transmission systems, less likely to cause grief and pain.
Many of my other "wishes" have been well covered. I especially like the idea of BMW designing the cockpit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. More range & payload, always.
2. My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!
3. More power. The same thing happens to every helicopter - it comes out with a max gross wt. The customers complain about too little payload & range, so the gross wt gets raised. This continues until at max gross at sea level, it will barely fly. So, put in a bigger engine, & goto start. Repeat. There really isn't a solution here, except for putting in the bigger engine at the start.
4. More range & payload
5. More range & payload. I'm tired of flying IFR at the ragged edge of legality & safety. I have to fly IFR 150-200NM out offshore, & the current crop of helicopters don't cut it. This requirement isn't going away, it's just going to get larger & longer.
2. My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!
3. More power. The same thing happens to every helicopter - it comes out with a max gross wt. The customers complain about too little payload & range, so the gross wt gets raised. This continues until at max gross at sea level, it will barely fly. So, put in a bigger engine, & goto start. Repeat. There really isn't a solution here, except for putting in the bigger engine at the start.
4. More range & payload
5. More range & payload. I'm tired of flying IFR at the ragged edge of legality & safety. I have to fly IFR 150-200NM out offshore, & the current crop of helicopters don't cut it. This requirement isn't going away, it's just going to get larger & longer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GLSNightPilot says:
"My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!"
Nick sez:
No sweat! If you bring the Toyota into our Stratford factory, I am sure we can make it leak.
EDIT: I realize that this is an incredibly wiseguy answer, but with that set-up, I simply couldn't resist!! Can pprune ever forgive me? Will GLSNightPilot?
"My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!"
Nick sez:
No sweat! If you bring the Toyota into our Stratford factory, I am sure we can make it leak.
EDIT: I realize that this is an incredibly wiseguy answer, but with that set-up, I simply couldn't resist!! Can pprune ever forgive me? Will GLSNightPilot?
Great thread. I note the amount of range/payload/power increase requests but I think we are forgetting the axiom about nothing for free. If you want to take more payload further - then you buy a larger helicopter and pay the extra DOCs!! If we want our machines to take full fuel and full pax loads - then every time we fly with less we are paying DOCs that are too high. The CH47 is a great example here. By using it just to move troops (Afghanistan DAs are an exeption) you are wasting the asset. So if we want our smaller birds (206 & EC120 were mentioned above) to take off at full fuel and full pax, we cannot then also ask for lower DOCs. I think by asking for lower DOCs we are at the root cause because then we would be able to afford the bigger machines for those types of bigger jobs.
My 5:
1. Reduced DOCs.
2. Reduced noise.
3. Throttles back on to the collective with the arc of movement found on the 205/212/412 throttle. I reckon Bell got it right with the Huey throttle, and then when backwards with the 206 throttle by reducing the arc of movement. Collective mounted throttles with decent movement arcs offer so many more options to so many (although unlikely) emergencies - ie governor overspeeds/underspeeds, governor fluctuations, torque splits, tail rotor fixed pitch, tail rotor failure, etc etc etc.
4. NVG compatible cockpits as standard. As a dream - all IFR/night cockpits to have FLIR/NVG image projection onto the windscreen. But in reality, perhaps a cheap dash mounted screen that you can pop up on dark nights/IMC with a FLIR/NVG image projected from a small nose mounted sensor (like where the landing light is currently mounted in the AS350 series). I think this will GREATLY reduce one of our largest killers - CFIT.
5. Simple foolproof engine displays. As above - a large eye catching torque (or preferably "first limitation indicator") display and Rotor RPM display. These are our two most critical and watched displays - make 'em big! (Avoid the Longranger method of RRPM indication which is upside down). A tamper proof ETM should also be a mandatory standard fit to record all exceedences, flight time, etc. While I am bleating about this - "simple" would also mean making every limitation 100. Use of SDCs should be able to achieve this.
Um......just one more.....please??
6. A standard cyclic and collective switchology. No external load releases on the IFR trim release switch! No float activators in unusual places. No intercom/transmit switches on load release switches. No landing light switches on float activation switches - you all know someone whom climbed out after punching off a bucket or load or floats because of these issues.
I realise that requests 2,3,4,5,6 are not necessarily compatible with request 1, but who said the customer needs to be reasonable??
My 5:
1. Reduced DOCs.
2. Reduced noise.
3. Throttles back on to the collective with the arc of movement found on the 205/212/412 throttle. I reckon Bell got it right with the Huey throttle, and then when backwards with the 206 throttle by reducing the arc of movement. Collective mounted throttles with decent movement arcs offer so many more options to so many (although unlikely) emergencies - ie governor overspeeds/underspeeds, governor fluctuations, torque splits, tail rotor fixed pitch, tail rotor failure, etc etc etc.
4. NVG compatible cockpits as standard. As a dream - all IFR/night cockpits to have FLIR/NVG image projection onto the windscreen. But in reality, perhaps a cheap dash mounted screen that you can pop up on dark nights/IMC with a FLIR/NVG image projected from a small nose mounted sensor (like where the landing light is currently mounted in the AS350 series). I think this will GREATLY reduce one of our largest killers - CFIT.
5. Simple foolproof engine displays. As above - a large eye catching torque (or preferably "first limitation indicator") display and Rotor RPM display. These are our two most critical and watched displays - make 'em big! (Avoid the Longranger method of RRPM indication which is upside down). A tamper proof ETM should also be a mandatory standard fit to record all exceedences, flight time, etc. While I am bleating about this - "simple" would also mean making every limitation 100. Use of SDCs should be able to achieve this.
Um......just one more.....please??
6. A standard cyclic and collective switchology. No external load releases on the IFR trim release switch! No float activators in unusual places. No intercom/transmit switches on load release switches. No landing light switches on float activation switches - you all know someone whom climbed out after punching off a bucket or load or floats because of these issues.
I realise that requests 2,3,4,5,6 are not necessarily compatible with request 1, but who said the customer needs to be reasonable??
Nick,
I'm going to have two bites of the cherry on this, the first list as an operator, this one as a pilot:
1. Comfortable seats, and a liveable environment. No one benefits by getting heat soaked or frozen because the cockpit was designed for a legless dwarf with no sense of hot or cold
2. Ergonomic control layout. The collective hinged behind the pilot's left buttock must be the No 1 backache culprit of all time.
3. A vote with Helmet Fire, for standardised switchery. Even the same aircraft type within the same company can be wired differently. The Military (IIRC) don't do it, for a very good reason!
4. Accessible inspection areas, oil tanks that can be topped up without needing three hands plus a right angled funnel, fold out steps or platforms to stand on without the risk of falling off, and grease free bearings (wish.........). If I wanted dirty hands before going flying, I'd have become an engineer
5. A powerful, comfortable, vibration free, responsive and capable helicopter that can actually carry full load of passengers, plus baggage, with a full tank of fuel, with the airconditioner on during TO & landing, with all the radios that I need to talk to anyone, and a cup holder. That'll do me
PS regarding my "operator's" wish list, note: DoC's set in concrete. I don't need them reduced ('twould be nice), but I do need them to be absolutely predictable.
I'm going to have two bites of the cherry on this, the first list as an operator, this one as a pilot:
1. Comfortable seats, and a liveable environment. No one benefits by getting heat soaked or frozen because the cockpit was designed for a legless dwarf with no sense of hot or cold
2. Ergonomic control layout. The collective hinged behind the pilot's left buttock must be the No 1 backache culprit of all time.
3. A vote with Helmet Fire, for standardised switchery. Even the same aircraft type within the same company can be wired differently. The Military (IIRC) don't do it, for a very good reason!
4. Accessible inspection areas, oil tanks that can be topped up without needing three hands plus a right angled funnel, fold out steps or platforms to stand on without the risk of falling off, and grease free bearings (wish.........). If I wanted dirty hands before going flying, I'd have become an engineer
5. A powerful, comfortable, vibration free, responsive and capable helicopter that can actually carry full load of passengers, plus baggage, with a full tank of fuel, with the airconditioner on during TO & landing, with all the radios that I need to talk to anyone, and a cup holder. That'll do me
PS regarding my "operator's" wish list, note: DoC's set in concrete. I don't need them reduced ('twould be nice), but I do need them to be absolutely predictable.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could I have forgotten the throttles???
It's just criminal negligence to have the throttles on the floor, or on the ceiling, or anywhere else but on the collective. So you might have to pay Bell a little for patent licensing - I feel for you, but I just can't reach you. That's my #1 complaint about Sikorsky - overall a great helicopter, but those throttles are just ridiculous.
Fix this, & I'll forgive you for the leaks.
It's just criminal negligence to have the throttles on the floor, or on the ceiling, or anywhere else but on the collective. So you might have to pay Bell a little for patent licensing - I feel for you, but I just can't reach you. That's my #1 complaint about Sikorsky - overall a great helicopter, but those throttles are just ridiculous.
Fix this, & I'll forgive you for the leaks.
Last edited by GLSNightPilot; 15th Jul 2002 at 04:49.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Low, low down
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
These are just my wishlist, in no particular order, from a pilot's point of view, with no commercial considerations. I've flown, amongst others, Sikorskys, Bells and Eurocopter machines from the volume manufacturers, and most of my time is on twin-engine machines.
1. Decent, crashworthy, comfortable seats with a full range of movement, both vertically and fore/aft and with a decent fully adjustable lumbar support. This should be coupled with a good range of yaw pedal adjustment which can be accomplished without being a contortionist! S76 seats are awful! My $15,000 VW Polo has better seats than almost any (multi million $) helicopter I've flown! Almost any pilot over the age of 50 (and there are a heck of a lot!), who has probably got around 30 years of helicopter flying has some kind of back problems.
2. Collective mounted throttle levers. The best I encountered were on the old S58T which had no need for an electrical idle stop like the 212/412. The fact that Eurocopter were able to change from overhead to collective mounted throttles for military training contracts shows it can be done. Overhead throttles are much more difficult to handle for manual governor emergencies when single pilot and the linkages are more vulnerable to damage if the rotor impacts the cockpit roof (e.g. BHL S61N, North Sea ca. 1976).
3. Cockpit layout such as to provide a good field of visibility during landing/hovering, and view of the mirrors for underslung load work. (With the number of cheap video cameras available nowadays it surely ought to be possible to provide one which would be capable of providing a view of both hook and load, controllable by the pilot, and with a monitor in the cockpitg close to the torque and Nr guages - or possibly incorporating torque and Nr readings on the display) The S76 is one of the worst I've flown for that.
4. Decent ventilation for operations in hot climates. Again the S76 (and the SA365N) are particularly bad for this, especially since the noise level precludes operation with the cockpit windows open. The Bell 412/212 is particularly good.
5. Enough room to stow a pilot flight bag in such a position that it is easily accessible to the pilot in flight (again, Nick, I'm sorry but the S76 is particularly bad in this respect).
6. A simple, easy to maintain and smooth rotor system (SA 365 series particularly worthy of mention here).
7. Decent sized baggage compartments, placed so as to have minimal effect on C of G (difficult I imagine, but has any thought been given to electrically moveable ballast, controllable by the pilot to shift the C of G, coupled with a built-in computer to assist in aforementioned calculations?).
8. Full class one performance in twin-engine machines up to 40 degrees C at sea level.
9. An instrument layout that allows easy vision of the torque/Nr gauages at the same time when carrying out normal (i.e. not long-line) underslung load work.
10. A high tail rotor/NOTAR/fenestron to lessen the dangers from the back end and reduce pilot worries.
11. Cockpits that don't leak.
12. On machines with retractable undercarriages, run-flat, fat tyres which don't sink into soggy ground too far. Again, sorry Nick, the S76 is not too good in this respect (though I do like the wheel-levelling system on touchdown)
13. Cup holders.
I expect there are many others, but that's enough to be getting on with.
Edited for typo by Weedflier on 16 July - thanks Arraitch - must be getting old!Collective
These are just my wishlist, in no particular order, from a pilot's point of view, with no commercial considerations. I've flown, amongst others, Sikorskys, Bells and Eurocopter machines from the volume manufacturers, and most of my time is on twin-engine machines.
1. Decent, crashworthy, comfortable seats with a full range of movement, both vertically and fore/aft and with a decent fully adjustable lumbar support. This should be coupled with a good range of yaw pedal adjustment which can be accomplished without being a contortionist! S76 seats are awful! My $15,000 VW Polo has better seats than almost any (multi million $) helicopter I've flown! Almost any pilot over the age of 50 (and there are a heck of a lot!), who has probably got around 30 years of helicopter flying has some kind of back problems.
2. Collective mounted throttle levers. The best I encountered were on the old S58T which had no need for an electrical idle stop like the 212/412. The fact that Eurocopter were able to change from overhead to collective mounted throttles for military training contracts shows it can be done. Overhead throttles are much more difficult to handle for manual governor emergencies when single pilot and the linkages are more vulnerable to damage if the rotor impacts the cockpit roof (e.g. BHL S61N, North Sea ca. 1976).
3. Cockpit layout such as to provide a good field of visibility during landing/hovering, and view of the mirrors for underslung load work. (With the number of cheap video cameras available nowadays it surely ought to be possible to provide one which would be capable of providing a view of both hook and load, controllable by the pilot, and with a monitor in the cockpitg close to the torque and Nr guages - or possibly incorporating torque and Nr readings on the display) The S76 is one of the worst I've flown for that.
4. Decent ventilation for operations in hot climates. Again the S76 (and the SA365N) are particularly bad for this, especially since the noise level precludes operation with the cockpit windows open. The Bell 412/212 is particularly good.
5. Enough room to stow a pilot flight bag in such a position that it is easily accessible to the pilot in flight (again, Nick, I'm sorry but the S76 is particularly bad in this respect).
6. A simple, easy to maintain and smooth rotor system (SA 365 series particularly worthy of mention here).
7. Decent sized baggage compartments, placed so as to have minimal effect on C of G (difficult I imagine, but has any thought been given to electrically moveable ballast, controllable by the pilot to shift the C of G, coupled with a built-in computer to assist in aforementioned calculations?).
8. Full class one performance in twin-engine machines up to 40 degrees C at sea level.
9. An instrument layout that allows easy vision of the torque/Nr gauages at the same time when carrying out normal (i.e. not long-line) underslung load work.
10. A high tail rotor/NOTAR/fenestron to lessen the dangers from the back end and reduce pilot worries.
11. Cockpits that don't leak.
12. On machines with retractable undercarriages, run-flat, fat tyres which don't sink into soggy ground too far. Again, sorry Nick, the S76 is not too good in this respect (though I do like the wheel-levelling system on touchdown)
13. Cup holders.
I expect there are many others, but that's enough to be getting on with.
Edited for typo by Weedflier on 16 July - thanks Arraitch - must be getting old!Collective
Last edited by weedflier; 16th Jul 2002 at 04:48.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scone, NSW
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weedflier, I hope that was just a typo, when you requested CYCLIC mounted throttles!
Ventilation is an absolute necessity operating in Oz. The worst helo in this respect has to be the EC120 - all that glass, and the piddling fan only blows in your eyes to make them sore. Open the piddling side window, and this aerodynamically slick machine makes all the air go past without coming in. Try flying from Canberra to Sydney in 38 degrees plus, a full load of pax, sunlight beating through the glass, cyclic in left hand, right hand out the window trying to scoop some air in. T'aint pleasant. And your legs (in navy blue corporate-style trou) and feet (in black Doc Martens) are just roasting.
Ventilation is an absolute necessity operating in Oz. The worst helo in this respect has to be the EC120 - all that glass, and the piddling fan only blows in your eyes to make them sore. Open the piddling side window, and this aerodynamically slick machine makes all the air go past without coming in. Try flying from Canberra to Sydney in 38 degrees plus, a full load of pax, sunlight beating through the glass, cyclic in left hand, right hand out the window trying to scoop some air in. T'aint pleasant. And your legs (in navy blue corporate-style trou) and feet (in black Doc Martens) are just roasting.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scone, NSW
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heedm,
Yeah, that works for a short time - until the right cheek of your backside gets sore, and the passengers complain of leaning against each other. Besides, a perfectionist like me finds flying out of balance abhorrent.
Yeah, that works for a short time - until the right cheek of your backside gets sore, and the passengers complain of leaning against each other. Besides, a perfectionist like me finds flying out of balance abhorrent.
arraitch,
I am with you on the EC120. Do NOT buy one in sunny climes without an airconditioner.
Although I am really trying not to keep adding to the list (why did you limit it to 5 Nick - in the hope of getting the REALLY important ones?) I will throw another vote into the ring for cowl latches as per above - this prompted by recent thoughts about another accident.
As I had mentioned on the S92 thread a while back, I think that any new helicopter MUST have a foolproof cowl latch system as far too many machines and people have fallen victim to an open cowl. The EC120 has a system that automatically latches when the cowl is in the closed position, and I have flown a BK117 that has a modified system to achieve the same result. It appears that most of the cowl accidents are caused by cowls that are closed, but not latched. Thus to overcome the obvious and reoccuring human failure by designing an error tolerant system, I think that all new cowl designs should incorporate a self latching mechanisim.
I am with you on the EC120. Do NOT buy one in sunny climes without an airconditioner.
Although I am really trying not to keep adding to the list (why did you limit it to 5 Nick - in the hope of getting the REALLY important ones?) I will throw another vote into the ring for cowl latches as per above - this prompted by recent thoughts about another accident.
As I had mentioned on the S92 thread a while back, I think that any new helicopter MUST have a foolproof cowl latch system as far too many machines and people have fallen victim to an open cowl. The EC120 has a system that automatically latches when the cowl is in the closed position, and I have flown a BK117 that has a modified system to achieve the same result. It appears that most of the cowl accidents are caused by cowls that are closed, but not latched. Thus to overcome the obvious and reoccuring human failure by designing an error tolerant system, I think that all new cowl designs should incorporate a self latching mechanisim.
Last edited by helmet fire; 19th Jul 2002 at 01:48.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want two things, a Eurocopter AS350B3 made by Bell with a Pratt&Whitney engine
Reason? My company is located in Europe and the Eurocopter customer support is lousy and the Turbomeca engine is much too expensive.
We also operate two Bell 214B's and the support from Bell is excellent but for our operation the other single-engine Bell products, with the exception of 204/205, is not practical. We need a helicopter with a flat floor in the cabin for easy loading of equipment.
Reason? My company is located in Europe and the Eurocopter customer support is lousy and the Turbomeca engine is much too expensive.
We also operate two Bell 214B's and the support from Bell is excellent but for our operation the other single-engine Bell products, with the exception of 204/205, is not practical. We need a helicopter with a flat floor in the cabin for easy loading of equipment.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Hey Nick,
Our tail rotor gearbox input seal is weeping oil again.
That needs fixing......
Our tail rotor gearbox input seal is weeping oil again.
That needs fixing......
