Ive been flying the B222 for the past 4 years. Its a real pilots aircraft and a joy to fly.

It feels really solid and rugged, yet its quite agile for a 2 bladed helicopter.

Just watch the low tailrotor when doing terrain landings.

A question for a Bell 222 Pilot?
 

Is there any 222 or 230 pilots that could tell me how a 222 flys?

Is it angile? fast?

How does it handle in Pitch Roll and yaw?

What Torgue percentage would you need at take off with full fuel load and max passangers at sea level?

What Torgue percentage would you need at take off with half fuel and only the pilot at sea level?

Is there much difference (as regards how it handles) between the 222 and 230?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers

Neither is Agile, they are underslung rotors, much like a big 206, no major difference in handling 222/230.

Making turns abruptly can reslult in big torque spikes.

The 222 hovers better due to SAS the 230 doesn't have SAS.

The 222 is very underpowered, the 230 is just underpowered. You can carry more people further in a 407 at almost the same speed.

Both are fast and smooth.

Only 36 230's were made. Some 222's have an engine conversion from LTS101's to A250's, slightly better performance and much better reliability.

I know nothing about the 230 except they have the 250C30.

I have however 1000 hrs in the 222U model. In the temperatures where we did operate them we had plenty of power in ISA conditions both with twin engine and OEI (training).

The LTS 750 is a good engine, very reliable now and cheap to operate and uses about 270 lbs/hr pr/engine in the B-222.

The 750 engine is 735 hp at 2.5 min rating which means you loose only about 26% of available engine power in case of OEI.

We always had trouble doing engine topping test in it because we had to load it so heavy to keep her from hovering on one engine.

I was once told that the C30 in the B-230 is actually a smaller engine than the LTS101-750!

The B-222A model only has the Lycoming LTS101-650 engine which was too small for the aircraft.

The Sperry 4 axis autopilot in the B-222 is very good except in autohover since it does not have standard a doppler radar but uses accelerometers.

The 222U is very powerfull. But the one I flew had no SAS and no helipilots. Flying it IFR was challenging to say the least. No point in having two sets of jepps as the pilot flying could not take his eyes off the panel long enough to look at one.

The 222A was underpowered but with full helipilots and flight director. Once you got it going it was great.

Both seemed to get 130 to 140 knots in cruise.

Yes usually the U model does not have AP, but we had two of them with the Sperry 4 axis.

Regarding the questions you had:

1. Is it agile/fast?

Depends, I guess for it´s size (8.250 lbs) it´s fairly responsive and fun to fly and like mentioned before with plenty of power. Cruise airspeed on the U model about 125 kts to 130 kts depending on weight. Company procedure was to cruise on 80% torque but max continious power was 95% torque and when very light in -25°c she would go right up to Vne 150 kts at 95% Q and you would have to start a slight 200´ FPM climb to avoid busting the Vne!

2. How does it handle?

We´ll its not that stable. If that´s what you mean. She´s a handful to fly IFR without AP like any other helicopter.

3. What torque do you need with heavy aircraft on take-off?

My experience was that all was pretty much done at 80% Q! Hover, climb, cruise and maybe a little less on decent. But we would still do our decends at pretty high power and about 140 to 150 kts.

4. Torque for take-off when light?

50 to 60%.

5. How do the 230 compare with 222.

I don´t know much about the 230. But you can get a nice 222U or B model for about 800 to 1.2 million dollars. Don´t think you can find a 230 for less than 2 mill. In my opinion the 230 can´t be that much better.

All in all the B-222B & U models are pretty good helicopters that still suffer from bad reputation due to engine problems in its early years. Now the engine is very good and is operating in such aircraft as the BK-117, AS-350D & Bell 407. The 407 will have the bigger -750 engine which will make it a AS-350B3 "killer" :E

Aesir,

You are cheating, you are saying that the 222 has plenty of power, but you are in Iceland! Put the 222/230 at anything above sea level and a ISA+10 and its a real dog, I remember the 230 I used to fly, for every degree C that the temperature rose, I would have to deduct 50 pounds of gross weight, to a point where I could only take one or two passengers!

Then in a hover the 222 with SAS was decently stable, but the 230 was not really stable. It hovers so crooked to the side, I hate it. Agile? Don't think so, except if you compare it to a Mi26. Remember those torque spikes when turning? There is even a warning in the FM in regards to this. And the way the torque rises suddenly when operating hot, high and heavy when you use your pedals?

Lastly, if you read the Article in Flying Magazine where the 230 was reviewed, they call the 230 "the most stable Bell ever" and they meant once it was flying, like IFR, I almost thought it was almost like flying an airplane being so stable once you got airspeed.

Lastly FSI's B222/230 simulator is not working right now, not that the old one with mirrors was much good, but I was going to attend the course last month to be able to ferry a 222SP down to SA and they told me it was going to be a while until they had training available.

TripleDeuce,

I think the B222 is the best bell product, it's cheap to buy, it's as easy to fly as a 206, but with a vne at 150 and IFR capable. A smooth ride and surprisingly manoueverable for a underslung system. Some the mechanics wheren't crazy about it, and getting parts is getting harder and harder. But that goes for any old aircraft I guess..

re: the 222
 

I've been in the 222B & U models for the past couple of years, flying EMS in California.

If someone were asking whether or not they should buy a 222, I would answer, "That depends."

I guess I would have to know your mission, and where you would want to go with it. IFR transport - yes; Mountain rescue - no.

If your mission is transport from airport to airport, IFR, then I would say that, yes, the 222 is a good aircraft for you. I have found the 222 a very comfortable IFR aircraft. We have both types of autopilots in our fleet. Even without an autopilot, though, the basic aircraft has force trim, which if used properly, keeps the aircraft very stable. If your mission were going to be IFR, however, I would suggest the B model. It has the older SHZ-222 autopilot, which is analog and only 3-axis. It is very reliable and stable, provided you anticipate the flight director with your power commands. The B is an easy ten knots faster than the U also and a good deal smoother, having lost all of that skid-gear bounce. If all that was available was the U with the SPZ-7000 autopilot, I would still take it over the unaided U, but it's a cranky aircraft. You would think being a newer, digital, autopilot in 4-axis that it would be better, but that's just not the case. It relies heavily on the Radalt and accelerometers for inputs and these have constant problems. It manifests in much porpoising and hunting while on the localizer and can be a really uncomfortable ride. We've found that using it in 3-axis instead of 4 makes for a more stable approach.

Anyway, enough about IFR. I saw that you were posting from Ireland. I've never been there, but your latitude probably keeps you on the cooler side, I would guess. That's a good thing for the 222. We operate anywhere from ISA to ISA+30 with terrain around us to 3,500m or so. From May until October, any type of mountain landing is out. It simply does not have the power. If we go to the mountains it better be to a runway with a favorable wind. Because of all the gear we carry our takeoff weight is usually around 8,000 lbs, though (MGW=8,250). Most operators outside of EMS would operate with less.

You asked about pitch, roll and yaw. If you've flown any other Bell, it's similar. It flies like a longranger, only slightly more sluggish and with slower m/r rpm response due to the extremely heavy rotor system.

There are only minor differences between the 222B/U and the 230. The main difference is the C30 engine instead of the Lycoming LTS101. The were also slight changes to the tail rotor, etc. It's the same aircraft.

You asked about torque percentage with full fuel and pax. I can only comment on the 222B/U with the -750 engine, never having flown the 222 with the -650's. In this aircraft full fuel and pax would require high nineties on your mast torque, even where you are. Half fuel and just you would take low eighties, I would guess. I don't suspect that you would even be able to load the 222 with the 650's quite that heavy.

If you're putting alot of hours on the aircraft maintenance costs will eat you up. Parts are becoming harder and harder to get; Main rotor blades are almost impossible. Our aircraft are worked pretty hard and not given much TLC, so we are suffering quite a bit of down time. Operating near max gross for years on end is taking it's toll in the many vibration damping systems onboard and in subsequent airframe cracks.

If you plan to fly only occasionally, and at moderate weight, the aircraft will probably be fine for you. The fact that it is becoming too expensive for daily line use, may make it reasonably priced on the market in a short period of time.

A lower time aircraft that is well-tracked will fly like a dream.

Hope this helps
ITG

Bell 222 - any good for hot/high ?
 

Hello chaps,
just wanted to know wether there were any 222-drivers out there who tried the lady under hot/high conditions?
While flying underslung loads maybe?
I am quite far out and internet access is a rare treat so might take a while for me to get back to you :\ .
But please keep 'em coming regardless :ok: .
Cheers

Not a 222 driver but tried ladies in hot/high conditions - package holiday to Marbella seventh story of Hotel Don Miguel.

And she was far too petite to require an underslung load. :}

You need to try and stay well clear of the ladies with the underslung loads. Though from what I hear they can often be hard to spot.

Si

222 in Brunei
 

A colleague used to operate a 222 in Brunei, (special buy for the Sultan I think if I remeber rightly, though flown in mil colours) and did underslung work with it.
Not especially high over there, but I understand it was a fast and highly capable machine - several steps better than our 212s!
I can get more info if it would help.
Best wishes
J

Your question really made me laugh, I'm sorry!

There could be no worse aircraft at hot and high, well actually maybe the early S76 could be worse. But anyway, the 222 is a real flying anvil at hot and high, so much that you could probably carry more, farther in a Jet Ranger, definately carry more in a 206 L3,L4, and carry about twice the payload in a Bell 407.

There are some 222 SP conversions which are operated around here, they have newer more powerful Allison engines and they operate around here with the same load of a 206, say about 2 passengers with about 01+00 hrs fuel, owners like the room and the fact that its a twin, which is really a joke because in case of engine failure when heavy, you are still going down unless you are very light.

Base airport is MMMX and MMTO

Hi there,
thanks for all your answers. Good to see that humor is not lost on you :}
@ Blender:
so you are confirming what I suspected already. We did operate 222 in EMS config. but never ever hot/high. So the old lady is no good at this stuff then. I guessed as much. Shame really because the 222 are resonably fast and cheap to buy as well. But at the end of the day it always a different story between calculating from a manual and having to pull pitch on a hot day at 5000 ft DA. What is your bet for a twin in hot/high with loads up to a ton then?.
@ J
the helicopter would be used in a multi role capability (when are helicopters not :rolleyes: ). Could you find out more from your friend wether they had any probems with sand/salt/dust?

@ Blender:
since you were/are operating out of Mexico City I suppose you have taken the 222 up higher than we are planning to do. If I am not mistaken your elevation can easily lead to 10000 ft DA or more. Would you not think that to operate at half that altitude would be more convenient? We sold the last 222 in the early nineties so that was before my time. I have no personal experience with the aircraft. I mainly fly the BO105 so am used to pi**-poor single engine performance. Would be great if you could tell me a bit more about operating the 222 in general.
Cheers

WSPS,

I have flown the 230 for a considerable amount of time, the 222 around here will barely lift itself off the ground, I am not exagerating, with 20C all takeoffs would have to be running in a 222. I have ferried a couple of 222 on long flights from Mexico to the U.S. once airborne its comfortable, fast, quiet, smooth, stable. The only drawback I see with the 222 is the power, most 222 have the had the latest AD's on the LTS101's which were at the beginning a nightmare, make sure if you buy a 222 to do an excellent pre-purchase inspection, check all the required stuff has been performed, last 2, 222SP's have given its new customers expensive surprises.

Yes our density altitudes vary between 8000 and 12,000 usually, but my opinion is a straight 222 will require careful planning for every mission above 4 or 5 thousand feet

An excellent choice for arctic regions then:rolleyes:

The 222A was a dog at high temps and altitude, though I know operators that put a bubble door and hook on it and used it for fire-fighting. Vancouver Island Helicopters also used their A for setting power poles out of Prince Rupert. If it was all you had, I guess it could work, but certainly not a first choice. Visibility is poor for external work, then again the AStar is used a lot with that goofy window in the floor and the pilots don't seem to mind. On a fairly cold winter day I ran out of N1 at about 14,000' and had to start dropping the torque to the 60-70 range.

Moving up to the 222UT with the 750hp engines made a world of difference. They ran cooler and had reserve power to spare. Used them for mountain EMS and it seemed quite good.

Never flew the 230 Allisons enough to make a call, my guess is that they were a PR fix for a problem (650 lycomings) that no longer existed. The factory demonstration pilot kept pointing out how cool they ran, so likely they should have been OK at altitude.

Manuals
 

[QUOTE=WSPS]But at the end of the day it always a different story between calculating from a manual and having to pull pitch on a hot day at 5000 ft DA.

Like the Bell 212 "Rate of Climb" figures at 11,000+ AUW. The numbers were all negative!