Why did bell develop the 429? what was wrong with the 427? looking on wikipedia it looks like the 427 has a higher usefull load. Imho the 427 looks quite a bit better too.

What was wrong with the 427 compared to the 429?
Single hydraulic system, no stabilization or autopilot, not nearly as much room as the 429, lower Vne and cruise speed.
And I'm sure there are more reasons.

If I am not mistaken the first AS355 ( E ) had single hydraulics Aerospatiale chose to upgrade rather than a complete new model ( although to add 200KG payload there must have been a lot of other stuff )

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/3aa81c81935cec4b862573d000597d93/$FILE/H11EU.pdf

The light twin has to be the hardest market out there as there are probably more choices available than in the SE catagory.

AW EC and MD have many years jump on Bell , it is going to be a long hard road for them I think.

427 Limitations
 

Spot on Shawn. I had a peripheral input, and aside from your observations, it would have been too expensive and heavy to incorporate all the discrete requirements for Cat A systems separation, never mind overcoming all the other limitations. What it HAS done, though, is to act as a proving ground for the 429's dynamics, and to highlight areas for improvement elsewhere; fuselage,cabin, eqpt config, maintenance access, system reliability etc. Pity they do not (yet) have a wheeled version available for the corporate market - A109E may have eaten their lunch on that one:( ~ vfr

The fact that Bell did the same thing the big jets do in terms of maintenance review prior to development is amazing. First time this was ever done for helicopters as far as anyone knows.

Actually the first time the full MSG-3 process for establishing scheduled maintenance requirements to a vertical lift aircraft was adopted by a manufacturer (Bell) under FAA and TC approval was for the Bell Boeing 609 Tiltrotor (now known as BA609). Still underway though...


http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...g?t=1266260554

rear doors...
 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

SAIB Number:
SW-10-15

Issue Date:
02/05/2010

Subject:
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) Model 429 Helicopters with Clam Shell Doors

Introduction

This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) advises you, owners, operators, and modifiers of Bell Model 429 helicopters, that some models may have clam shell doors installed as access to the baggage area. These doors are approved for external baggage access ONLY and are NOT approved for occupant egress or emergency exits.

Background

The Bell Model 429 helicopter was approved and type certificated by the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Authority (TCCA) on June 20, 2009 followed by FAA type certificate issued on June 30, 2009. The type design includes clam shell doors on the rear of the helicopter fuselage. These clam shell doors provide access to the baggage area from the outside only. These clam shell doors are not approved as emergency exits nor are they approved for occupant egress. The baggage area is approved as baggage area only and not as an occupied area.

Recommendations

We have received Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) applications for modification of the Bell 429 passenger configuration to an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) configuration that incorporates the baggage area and usage of the clam shell doors for loading and unloading occupants. In order to obtain approval for this modification, the STC applicant will be responsible for providing the appropriate data addressing the baggage area as an occupied area and appropriate data supporting usage of the clam shell doors for occupant egress. We recommend that STC applicants discuss this modification with their Aircraft Certification Office representative prior to formal submittal of the STC application in order to know the appropriate certification requirements and data needed for substantiation of an area for it to be approved as an occupied area, and the clam shell baggage door to be approved as an occupant egress door.

For Further Information Contact

Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; phone: (817) 222-5122; fax: (817) 222-5962.

Hmm.
On the BK117 there was a mod so the doors could be opened by the attendant in the rear , will they now make a similar bulletin on Bk117 and EC145 or is this because it is aproved to a different FAR ?.
I recall a mod on the BO105 for bleed air heat that required the bleed air hoses that went from the engine comparment to the fwd cockpit to be double walled as they went through an occupied area .

Launch Customer Backs Away From Bell 429 : AINonline

Wonder if this is related.

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/n...es/13213-1.jpg
Priority 1 Air Rescue Completes Bell 429 Hoist Search and Rescue Configuration Milestone - Vertical Online
:D

Regards
Aser

Mercy One's 429 enters service
 

Mercy One's 429, N911ED, entered service last week in Des Moines. :ok: It was the helicopter on display at Heli-Expo in Houston, and it definitely had the clamshell doors in the back for loading and unloading patients. I'm assuming the FAA concerns were addressed.

Alright so that's one 429 in service. Where are the other ones? Air Methods has already bailed on the remainder of their order. Has anyone else actually bought one, let alone put one in the field? Or has the entire order book evaporated? I'm not being flippant; I'm serious: the type has been certified (and presumably in production) for almost a year now. Going back to Ian Corrigible's post of late January, there should be about a dozen in service. Where are they? Can we have a headcount?

Good question :ok:

We would like to know :confused: where are they?!

http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur...en/current.asp
serial # 10 put on Canadian register 03/26 this year.s/n 1 and and 2 still reg to Bell Canada.
serial # 8 on faa reg since jan this year to mitsui
serial 3,5 7 9 reg to Bell USA.
serial # 6 is Air methods.

Serial # 4 is unknown status on either Cdn or US reg.

Where are the 429s?
 

Bell said at Heli-Expo it had converted 50 of the 300 letters of intent to orders and planned to produce 25 this year (check any of the trade magazines). One 429 is in service in Des Moines as Mercy One. One is in Japan doing customer demonstrations. Another is returning from the FIDAE show in Chile, where it did the same. Another was reported to have been delivered to Mitsui; it's probably undergoing completions. One's at Bell's Training Academy in Fort Worth for flight instruction. At least one other is probably being used for development and certification of kits, like the rescue hoist and floats.

Pre-emptive SAIB?
 

Has anyone ever seen a pre-emptive SAIB like this? When it was issued Feb. 5, Bell had said it had delivered two 429s. Each was undergoing completions overseen by FAA inspectors who presumably are familiar with rotorcraft airworthiness regs and know how to approve STCs. One hopes they would address occupant egress through aft clamshell doors. Whole thing seems strange. FAA keeps saying its got an overworked staff and too small a budget. Why spend precious time and money issuing a public notice about something already being surveilled by FAA inspectors? If FAA had an egress concern, couldn't the head of rotorcraft or overall aircraft certification direct his/her staff to monitor it in issuing STCs? What was the purpose or payoff in issuing a public bulletin? Does an FAA inspector really need an SAIB in his back pocket to give him the juice to do his job in the field?
As for "addressing the baggage area as an occupied area," the 429s I've seen have a continuous space from the pedals to the aft wall of the cabin structure. Why wouldn't that entire space be cleared as occupied space? After all, the aircraft was designed from the start as an EMS bird.

A technical question. I've noticed the 429 has a tail rotor at an angle looking from above, tilted backward. Why is that? I understand some helicopters (Sikorsky mostly) have a vertical tail rotor angle displacement, but longitudinal?

6.1 degree offset at static condition, said to be worth 4 kt or so at cruise.

I/C

Wheels
 

Anyone know what’s happened to the wheeled version of the 429, Bell seem to have dropped all reference to them.

The original goal was availability from ship #26, but the wheel gear has now been removed from the options list.

I/C

One of the Bell test pilots told me today that they are still planning to build a wheeled version of the 429. I think he said it is planned for around autumn...

He showed me around the machine and I have to say...
-its quite ugly!
-even though it is Cat A all up to MTOM, it has quite a small payload.
-cabin space might compete with the 135, but from outside dimensions it looks more like a 145 and the 145 has much more cabin space.
-all the gadgets are great, but its all stuff Ive seen in Eurocopters and Agustas for years.
-Bell might have finally got it right and come up with something modern, but in my opinion they are now just as good as the Agustas and ECs around...not better, which should have been their aim.

...oh I liked the trend indications. Thats one great tool Ive been waiting for a long time.

trend indications?

Please explain to this foreigner.:O

Bell 429
 

Anyone have any experience with the 429? Bell is totting it as the most adavanced light twin-engine heli in the world.

Bell is charging $29,000 (VFR) and $43,000 (IFR) USD for ground and flight training. That seems very steep!

It is for them:}

The Bell 429 FatRanger. I am sure it is/will be great. But does sound pretty stiff $ wise, be interested to see what is in the course content. Might Google it.

Doors Off

429 at Mercy One
 

I note that a Bell 429 has been doing demo flights at Gloucestershire (UK) this week with a major EMS operator.
Has anybody heard how Mercy One are getting on with theirs?

Program director at Mercy one seems happy (recent AIN report) but remember that its operator Air Methods decided not to take any more of its planned buy of ten units after this one (AIN report at HeliExpo)

All you need to know from Mercy One is that after they flew their new FatRanger they promptly cancelled their remaining orders for any more of those beasts. Nuff said.

It's OK, they'll find a way to sell it to some "undisclosed" Central American nation for paramilitary use....or perhaps Irak
In the best tradition of Bell's products.:E

And umm... what stump puller of a twin aircraft did Air Methods buy to replace the 429? Oh yeah I forgot,they bought single engined aircraft instead because they're cheaper to operate!

I love how people speak ill of an aircraft they have never seen or flown before.

Seen it, but not flown it.
Actually not many pilots have flown it apart from the production test types, right?
Perhaps one of Bell's best guarded secrets.:E

Did you even bother to read the AIN article? Those are not Bell pilots and it appears they think very highly of the 429. It even seems that they prefer it to the 135 for speed, range and payload.

I have flown the 429, as well as the 135 and 145, and find that what the Mercy one pilots say about the aircraft is true. It's too bad that there is all sorts of negative press out there based on opinion and not fact!

Sorry, I look at facts and sales.
When I first saw the mock-up @ CAMTS 2005, Bell's CSR gave us a candid 400/600 lbs payload figure in the EMS configuration.
That number seems to stick judging by the sales numbers and actual number crunching, sometimes you have to read past the glossy brochures and fancy .pdf.
I have flown enough Bell hours (on pretty much all of their LTE capable designs) to know where the truth is subtly merged with hype and myth.

Besides that, the 429 is not even aimed at competing with the 135, but rather the 145 and the 109 Grand New.

As far as sales go, the recession hit every manufacturer pretty hard. Bell lost alot of the 429 sales mostly because of that. I would say it's not a very solid fact.

It is a heavy machine, but the guys at Bell are working to reduce the weight. It is NOT competing against the 145. It is certified under part 27 and not part 29. Because of that, the weight is limited to 7000lbs max gross weight.

I don't know why I argue because I feel it's pointless. People seem to have their minds made up before the aircraft actually has a chance to prove itself. It ticks me off because I know poeple who have worked on this project and they really put alot of effort to make this a good aircraft that they are proud of.

I asked if we were going to be getting any for offshore, as an alternate to the 135. I was told a resounding no, due to the fact that after our required equipment was installed (floats, etc), average pilot (real company average as opposed to a new fresh from the military or from being a cfi) and fuel to reach the places it would need to go, that there would be roughly 200-250 pounds of payload left.

That may have been an exaggeration, but it was made clear that we aren't buying any and I was disappointed.

The first time I saw it I was told by the Bell rep that I should think of it as a twin engine 407, speed and payload wise. I wish it was, I liked sitting in it, but its gotta perform!

Bell 429
 

I have to agree with Helico ru and the fact that everyone is very quick to jump on the negative bandwagon before even flying or even seeing it in person.

.....it's all just options at this point.

Regards,
RG

So I took the time and read the AIN report, did you?
It smells smack of another of Bell's publicity stunts, aimed squarely at those aeromedical programs run by...medical types and bean counters.

"The 135 was a good workhorse, but with the 429 we can still make 130 knots over the ground into a 30-knot headwind. It's a Corvette. This thing is fast."
That's 160 KTAS, right? Too bad the VNE is really 155 Kts.

"........, Mercy One program director, said power from the 429's twin P&WC PW207D1s (1,100 shp each) makes it natural for difficult scene work."

Too bad the 207 D1 really puts out 758 shp in 30 sec OEI mode.

What other crap can come out of the ONLY commercial operator of the Bell 429 in the USA?

Obviously a mix-up there with the xmsn rating. It is a strangely written article - the claim that Mercy One's aircraft can lift a 900lb payload with full fuel doesn't make any sense unless they are using a green, unconfigured aircraft, which sounds unlikely. Using the basic empty weight, full fuel (1453lb) plus a 200lb pilot would leave only 860lb useful load.

Well, in all honesty Mr. Keough says that he "can SIT on the pad with 900 pounds [payload] and full fuel all day".

And that is likely what he does.

So because you don't like the 429 (and apparently Bell) you feel the need to disparage the Mercy One pilots and crew? I've actually met Dan Keough and the pilots at Mercy One and they are very professional group. And they are, to a pilot, very excited about the 429 and it's performance. While they noted that the EC135 technically has 100 lbs more usefull load they also noted that it doesn't inspire confidence on a hot day at MTOW while the 429 did. They also said that they were averaging 110kias in the 135 and 145kias in the 429. But what do they know, they just fly both aircraft daily and I'm sure that their knowledge is nowhere near that of yours, even though you don't.

Look usmc, you first accused me of being biased because I was expressing a FACTS based opinion (scarce payload), while you ever so proudly (of course;)) were basing your hype on somebody else opinion of a new shiny toy and a (obviously sponsored) report on a magazine.
So I went and read the glowing report, then being a pilot and not just an enthusiast I compared their statements against FACTORY SPECS (as also someone else did) and those statements fell short of the truth.
Are you telling me I am biased?:=

Bell has known for over FIVE years of the 429s weight issues, and I think that AMC has sent the right message up the line.

totti, I will reiterate for you..."I have flown the 429, as well as the 135 and 145 , and find that what the Mercy one pilots say about the aircraft is true. " FYI when I was flying the 135 and 145 I was in the employ of AEC. I have compared all three aircrafts actual performance against that of the RFM, have you? Therefore my observations are based on more than "hype and someone elses opinon", unlike yours. You assume that the AIN article was 'obviously sponsored' (do you have evidence of that 'FACT' or is this also just opinion?). I pointed out that in a completely seperate and non related conversation on a visit to Mercy they expressed the same opinion, have you heard differently from them?
Yes Bell missed the mark on payload. I think there is a bit of confusion in the AIN article. If you look at what was said: "It is not a concern for us because our missions are typically less than 125 miles each way. I can sit on the pad with 900 pounds [payload] and full fuel all day." Given the usual mission range and the stated fuel burn it is safe to assume that they are off loading fuel. Given that Mr. Keough is not a pilot I think it is safe to assume that what he refers to as 'full fuel' is actually their standard mission fuel, not what you or I would refer to as full fuel. More of an honest mistake from a non pilot wouldn't you say?
Your other 'fact' wrt:
"The 135 was a good workhorse, but with the 429 we can still make 130 knots over the ground into a 30-knot headwind. It's a Corvette. This thing is fast." That's 160 KTAS, right? Too bad the VNE is really 155 Kts.
Did you bother to convert to TAS? KDSM sits at 958'msl. They probably fly at 2000'msl or higher. At 2000'MSL the 429s TAS is 157 ktas(153 kias vne). At 4000' msl TAS is 160 ktas(151 kias vne). At 6000'msl the 429s TAS is 162 (149 kias vne). And yes it will fly that fast. It's this speed factor that would, presumably, allow them to takeoff with less than a full fuel (as you and I would call it) and still safely accomplish their mission with a reserve.