206 BIII Operating Costs in the Uk
 

Used the search procedure but I can't find any UK specific, upto date answers.

Just need the average hourly costs for a Jetranger, excluding fuel and pilot.

Many thanks
Eworth

Depends on component times, how many hours a year you do and how lucky you are, really! For example, TT straps will cost you around £6,000 to replace and need doing every two years. So if you only fly 50 hours a year, there's a £60/hour variable for a start.

I'd say about £250-£300/hour, but that's a wild estimate.

Magazine article I saw a couple of years ago put the DOCs around the £300 mark. Fuel's gone up since then, but it was a small part of the overall figure.

Thanks very much for that, we came out with much the same figures. This machine is certainly going to be put through a lot of hours, so we are going to use £265ph for planning purposes.
Many thanks
Eworth

Guys, what ever figure you come up with double it and hope for the best, it seems to me that its open season for anything with a turbine,have had 3, its no joke

Forgot to mention DONT buy ab206 3 :=

why not a ab206 BIII V ?.

tell me more.

cs.

The Agusta Bell under EASA can only have Agusta parts fitted, NOT Bell parts, so all those unfortunate people who have Agusta Jet Rangers with a mix of parts are now flying them illegal. Agusta dont seem to want to support the ageing product anymore and the parts supply chain is drying up rapidly. Ironically if you need say main rotor blades (for example) they come from Bell and shipped to Agusta who then issue you with their correct paperwork which states that they are now fit for purpose, but beware this does not apply to all parts which appear to be common.

I have just come out of a B3 which the CAA revoked its brand new c of a and has had to have EVERY Bell part removed/replaced. Some parts were no longer available and had to be sent away for NDT testing for the manufacturer to issue the release as new ones were not available. This is obviously a European problem.

If in doubt contact the CAA who have all the information.

What? I hope you are being badly advised.

I have a letter on file from Agusta customer services stating that if I provide them with a list of Bell parts fitted to my aircraft (as long as they were fitted before the moratorium date...March 2006 IIRC), they will formally adopt them on their system. I have provided a complete list to them and haven't heard a dicky-bird since.

And mine is more Bell than Agusta!

206

i think you will find rescue 1 learnt all of his information the hard way in ££££££

hi G

MD 600

I'm sure that's true, but runs contrary to all the advice that I have been given. If the catch-all "all those unfortunate people who have Agusta Jet Rangers with a mix of parts are now flying them illegal" is true, then my machine is illegal. And worthless. So of course I'm entitled to ask.

So therefore, could I repeat my request for some back-up to this assertion? Or at least more information? If - for example, not that this is the case etc etc - the Bell parts in question were fitted after the moratorium, more fool Rescue One.

Let's put it this way, either him (or his engineer) or Agusta has got it wrong (I have a letter from them in my grubby mitts).

As an owner of an Agusta Bell JetRanger with a shedload of Bell parts on it, I'd like to know which;)

There are probably just as many machines with the opposite problem ...so why not organise a "swap shop " between machines . Also as has been said before , there are loads of parts for sale out there for agusta parts , air and ground ltd being just one . There may be an extra cost of recertification /inspection etc but they still come out much cheaper than new.
Is there any legal responsibility for Agusta to support their products ??
anyway if you think your machine is now worthless due to Bell parts contact me and i will be happy to buy it off you.....

Nigel, of course you're right: there may be some swapsies to be done, but experience tells me that there are few Bells with Agusta bits on (the notable exception being the one that kicked all this off.....). Certainly the received wisdom when I was considering machines was to go for Agusta as you can always fit Bell parts to them, but not the other way round.

Not sure where Rescue One has gone, but I'd like to hear from him/her again: I'm genuinely interested as like all these things, different people have different takes on the same story.

As for my machine, it is up for sale, but not because it's an Agusta with Bell bits on it...more that I'm committed to a newer aircraft. So feel free to make me an offer. Air and Ground can have their tailboom back then!!

You will find that engineers being what they are interpret the rules as THEY see it, not necceserily how Agusta (service letter) and more importantly EASA now viewinsurance it. The engineers think that because this situation has been ok since time began that its still ok, which I can tell you is incorrect and is why you should now take fresh instructions from the CAA (Mr McMillan East Midlands office) who I am sure will enlighten (frighten) you.

Of course the biggest problem here is that you have to make a claim on your insurance to be told that you have unwittingly invalidated your insurance by having parts fitted which are not certified by Agusta.
My particular machine had brand new Bell tail rotor blades fitted which HAD to be changed to Agusta blades, guess what no part used blades anywere and eventually Agusta had no option but to certify said blades because they are no longer in production. So if the new owner dings a blade in the near future the machine is grounded indefinatly because Bell nor Agusta now manufacture those blades.

I should just add that I have no particular axe to grind against the product and that in a way I was lucky due to the fact that I bought the machine from a dealer who eventually had no option but to refund my money. My only down side was not having my own machine to fly for most of last year which meant hiring, and the emotional stress. This all started in November 2006 and the helicopter was released to service in November 2007. That helicopter had not flown properly 5 months prior to that either awaiting the now defunked C of A, but thats another story which should be taken up on another thread, maybe !!

I wouldant rest your hopes on the monitoriam bit jock, but if it helps you sleep easy at night zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:=

Rescue,

Thanks for clearing your circumstances up. Luckily I'm dealing with Agusta on my Bell parts and it looks fine....as long as the parts were historically fitted.

Of course, there is the problem of future supply for an older machine...

206jock,

Just to compound the problem, around that time some ex militery 206 parts became available which originated in the middle east (Saudi). The MRG in my machine had come from this source but didant have the correct (recent) release to service which I believe is a EASA form 1. The CAA took the view that the gearbox should at the very least have a mid life (1200 hour) inspection, but they would have prefered the full thing due to the incredible old age of the unit, which must have been laid around somewere gathering dust. Just to add fuel to the fire THIS unit had a release from Agusta ??. I believe NigelH made the point that these parts which I believe originated from a dealer down on the south coast (who had them advertised on his website) could well be the very same items he mentioned.

We did try at the time to get people to do the swopping thing, and if you get Helidata you will have seen the add looking for MRB and TRB on ours to swop with Bell owners. The parts pool has dried up, hence why Agusta had no option but to certify the TRB. The machine had to have brand new MRB at a cost of $60k a pair on a 1980 machine ?, because they had no option in the end. Its sad really because I did offer to contribute towards the cost of the blades way back in April 07 but they were adamant that they could get around the problem without going to that exspense.

I did see a similar thread on this forum just before xmas regarding this very problem, but cannot find it anymore, was that you ?

I recall the advert in Helidata, I know of what you speak. Makes sense now! The ex-mil parts were originally offered by one company who then sold them to another, as I understand it. I sourced a tailboom from this stock that also had to be overhauled prior to fitment on my machine.

The other thread was originated by a friend of mine who had a problem with his BIII and parts supply. I think Agusta are heartily sick of this issue, but being Italians, they won't actually propose a workable solution!

Bell / Agusta 206 parts
 

Surprised to see such unenlightened thinking from the regulatory authorities (but am I surprised now that EASA rules?)
The original (and I still believe valid) premise was that Agusta built the 206, and many other USA origin helos, under licence. Thus 'fit, form and function' had to be acceptable to the original DA (Design Authority) i'e identical. The only exceptions to this were the installation of assemblies were prescribed, rather than on the dynamics, for instance, some of the close tolerance individual parts dimensionally in metric as opposed to imperial. This also applied to structural items too, eg doors, cowlings etc. Of course, it would be optimistic to expect a new Agusta blade to fly with a part life Bell blade through the entire operational spectrum from hover to Vne, but then it might be a challenging exercise doing the same with 2 x Bell blades, under the same conditions. I am intrigued to read of this 'unique' interpretation since I was involved in the UK engineering scene. For what it's worth I hold a (converted) Pt 66 licence, so this subject is dear to my ears.
Would like to hear the rationale for such a non-pragmatic statement from the Authority. The statement that Bell parts are furnished by Agusta with covering Italian release is absolutely correct. So where's the sense gone?
Puzzled of Essex :confused:

cmacltd

Have a look at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1594/LTO2539.pdf

Although nothing has subsequently been published (it was nearly three years ago and EASA are still 'consulting'), this is being 'interpreted' as effectively a moratorium on the cross-fitment of parts.

As the Bell and Agusta machines are subject to different Type Certificates (unlike IIUC some US planks that were made under licence in Europe), the 'interpretation' is that there should be no cross fitting of parts.

The biggest problem is that everyone is happy to dole out tea and sympathy to AB owners, but no-one wants to get off their fat asses and do something about the situation.

Bell and Agusta Bell 206
 

206 jock
Right, got that. This is absolute b*****ks, if you will forgive the language. I can understand the CAA being politically 'diplomatic', but this is nonsense. The orginal reason for no fitment of Agusta parts to Bell machines was a protectionist policy for the domestic market when the aircraft was first certificated by FAA. You and I might not agree with the principle but we could (just) understand the situation. I need to get out some historical docs all archived at present. 2 points that are absolute; Agusta published an Info letter (1980s) which correlated the build of their s/n ships to Bell ones (since at the time the A/B manuals were a photocopy of the Bell manuals including the IPC). This so that the correct dash number components could be checked for compliance with the Type Cert at C of A issue/renewal. Secondly, the containers with Bell pick-ticket parts that were shipped to Agusta are genuine Bell parts, from Bell inventory. I could be wrong but as far as I am aware Agusta don't make any dynamic parts for the 206 any more, and probably the airframe bits would be SOO (special order only). I'll check that when I see the UK dealer in 10 days time and will revert.

It's a contentious issue from which all the emotion needs to be removed, but I would think that CAA (and EASA) are on thin ice if a cogent rationale were to be presented. Possibly the adopted stance comes from an inability to restrain some of the 'wide boys' who in the past have carried out mix-&-match of individual parts in dynamic components within the drive train. That's absolutely against the rules, of course; clearances will be all over the place and airworthiness compromised as a result. But essentially my (personal) argument comes from the baseline that Bell are the DA, and that their parts can & should be fitted to all 206s.

Aviation seems to have lost its way :ugh:

Interesting....

Indeed, the reason I bought Agusta in the first place was that I could alwsy fit Bell or Agusta parts: that was the way it was.

If you can find anything that might help some people to see sense, myself and many of my fellow AB owners would be very grateful!

I've spoken to to an operator who leases back and reckons private owners can more or less break even, even when the AC is on a mortgage. At £300 an hour DOC this seems unlikely - are any costs diluted by higher annual utilisation?

Jetranger operating costs.
 

So with a DRY running cost of say £280 per hour would that also include hangerage at £4000 p.a. and commercial insurance at say £13,000, based on the machine flying approx. 200 hours per year?



I accept the overall running costs do depend on times etc.

206 DOCs
 

No, I doubt that. The Direct Operating Costs are just that; hangaage and Insurance are fixed costs and must be added, on an annual basis, and will be incurred whether the aircraft flies 1 hour or 500. So obviously to reduce the overall cost one needs to fly within reason, as much as possiblel so as to amortize the fixed costs over as many hours as possible.
As a very crude rule of thumb if you cannot fly more than 300 hours per annum, it will usually be more cost-effective to lease an aircraft rather than to own it

we have a AB 206 3 and it is costing based on two hundred hours a year 50,000 euro, plus parts when required over the last two years.
that,s 50k per year.
choppersquad.

206 B III op costs
 

"....plus parts when required over the last two years....." And that's the rub, of course. The annual Overall cost of operation will depend upon whereabouts in its maintenance cycle the machine is. If you fly 200 hrs/year there will be some years when normal scheduled maintenance will encompass just a couple of 100hr inspections and a couple of 50hr lubrication checks, some TLC and an Annual. Almost all labour and no parts of any consequence. If the next year's flying puts you into the time-allotted for replacement of hard-lifed parts (say blades) and/or O/H of any of the dynamic components, then you will need the BIG cheque book for that year. The fixed costs, of course, remain - in addition.

On top of this there are some components of the Eurocopter range that have a calendar life imposed irrespective of the number of hours flown. AND for the venerable Allison (now RR) engine, compressor and turbine have cycle limits that must be observed as well. (If you do lots of short trips less than 30mins and rinse the engine at the end of the days flying it's no good budgeting on a mini-turbine cost at 1775 hrs; the 3000 cycle limit is likely to come up first. Same price, but earlier than you had projected)

The singular benefit of the J/R is that for the most part maintenance costs are predictable, and based broadly on flying time. But they will fluctuate from year to year - see para 1 above.As an engineer, if requested, I look at the schedule of components and the hours/cycles/calendar time left to the next removal from service - and, as best can be done, put a figure on that work. If you then divide one by the other at least you get an idea of what must be spent over the period of time you intend to operate the machine. Yes my fee is not insignificant, and no, I cannot be held to those sums since there are other variables that will effect the final total, but it does help to alleviate some of the strenuous conversations that otherwise inevitably ensue. As an ex Chief Engineer I know this only too well!!

Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is a fact of life that so often seems to be overlooked:ouch:

cmac
what do you think of a 30 year old jetranger or a new 44. we went for the jetranger as the d o c was the same except for parts when required.we felt the 44 would take a big loss in value ie.600 hours or three years old .the jetranger would still be worth what we paid for it in three years .Have you come across this question as a engineer.

choppersquad.

206 BIII costs vs R44
 

That's an interesting comparison, and no, I have never done the exercise. The R44 is a fine aircraft & Mr Robinson is a smart chap, no doubt about that. I am not up to speed with the residual values of the type as compared to the J/R, whereas you have done your homework obviously. I guess the problem is a little more complex than all the dealers present. If youstart with a brand-new machine then the comparison over a given period of operation (and the residual value at the end of it) is relatively straight-forward. Used machines, especially if part-life components have been installed at some time present a more complex number-crunching exercise. At the end of the day I suppose it is the market that determines the market value at any given moment in time. Sorry I cannot give you anything more tangible.

"the d o c was the same except for parts when required"

That's the problem. I suspect the 'parts' you'll require (or overhauls etc) will easily add up to more than the depreciation you would suffer on the R44, given your 3 year/600 hour sum.

Put it this way: I've recently sold a 37 year old JetRanger for c.£35k more than I paid for it in 2002, with around 500 hours more TT. But I'd hate to do the sum of how much I spent in between times.....but it sure would have been a better deal to buy an R44!

Yeah but 206 is a sexy machine.:ok:

Oh yeah! That's why I've bought a newer one!

Otherwise I'd have to change my name on here, innit?

i would say approx 75k so far in extra costs, so not to far off the r44 drop in price for what seems to be out there in r44 values.But as you say will you pay the extra for getting in to a jetranger v a r44 even if it is 37 years old.

cs

Better off to buy a R44?
- don't think so, you'd have been 150K stg worse off!
35k profit in jet ranger - GONE!
95k depreciation in R44 from 2002 to 2008 - GONE!
20k extra spent on fuel - GONE!

150k total - BLOWN! ! :(

Plus the R44 would still have needed its annual and C of A just like the Jet Ranger, plus the 25 hour oil change hassle and maybe a couple of cylinders and a set of main rotor blades! :*

Never mind the embarassment of the popping and banging noises and all the shaking whenever you go to start it! :uhoh:

Claudia

206 jock do you mean a brand new Jetranger?

emphasis on the 'er' (as in newer).

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...r/IMG_2604.jpg

Comes out of the UK shop this week, if the wind ever calms down to allow the flight test!

Veeeery nice.:ok:

I take it you went for a Bell this time !! Out of interest did you have any problems selling your Agusta Bell due to all this nonsense ? Was there a survey on it to check it didnt have any \Bell parts ? I would imagine there are a lot of machines grounded at the moment looking for A B parts .....

Indeed: that pic was in Texas! It was an accident damaged machine, rebuilt and zero-timed components throughout.

It took a while to sell the old one, but I got a sensible offer in the end...less than I wanted, more than I feared. The Agusta thing is still a problem (I was asked about it by the buyer), but if you're prepared to deal with Agusta, it shouldn't ground the aircraft as long as parts can be found. My Bell parts were adopted by the factory, so not an issue, until overhaul time.

Are you keeping the paintscheme? It's very clean. What age? And what was the accident?