Does anyone have current cots per incurred in $USD terms?

Doesn't have to be accurate, just ball park figures. Mainatince/future components/fuel based on 400-500 hrs per ann

Op's are small amount of commerical, but mainly tourist charter



thanks in advance
:confused:

Two of my pals have just imported an MD500c (Hughes 369 HS).

You can read about it here

Joel:ok:

i must say it looks very original and straight a good find !
are they putting it on the g reg? or leaving it on the n reg?
log

Hi

The intention is to transfer onto the G-REG

Joel:ok:

Six blade head; Good or Bad?
 

I'm doing a bit of research into the whole H-6/H500 family of helicopters and I have a few questions about the latest version, the H-6M and the AH-6X/i series. These helicopters have a six blade main rotor head (apparently lifted from the MD600N) and a four blade tail rotor.

1. What are the benefits of the six blade system over the previous five and four blade heads?

2. Does it have inferior autorotation performance characteristics when compared to the five or four blade system?

3. Does the six blade system offer greater responsiveness over less-populated heads?

4. I think it was mentioned earlier that the older four blade system outperforms the five blade system at very high altitudes. Does the six blade head compound this problem and if so, can it be compensated for by simply having a big, powerful engine (which it appears the H-6M is fitted with)?

5. Should the 160th SOAR and Boeing consider reverting to a five or four blade system with a more efficient rotor blade design for extreme high altitude ops in places like Afghanistan?

On to the canted four blade tail rotor. Apparently this system has not met with universal approval from the 160th pilots. The A/MH-6M are due to go through a Block 1.0 upgrade soon and a yaw stability system is slated for installation.

1. What is the reason for mounting the tail rotor disc at an offset angle from the vertical?

If anyone can offer any answers to these questions, they will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.:ok:

500 Fan.

Would assume that the only way to increase max auw is to
1. Lengthen mrb's etc as per FF model However then have to slow blades down to stop tip going too fast. Easier solution add another blade.
2. Dont forget the 5 blade machines have a lower service ceiling as the certification is for flight at max auw. 2550lbs for 4 blades and 3000lbs for 5 blades, hence some of the decreased performance is due to higher auw.

Looking forward to those in the know answering other questions. I believe the melb as max take off of over 5500 lbs:eek:

MD500 Tips/Rules of thumb
 

Hello, I was hoping someone might have a general "rules of thumb" for the 500. Something like what you find all over for the Jetranger. Anything would be appreciated, thanks.

High step when walking around all models.

The skid toes are much higher than the 206 and it's really, really embarrassing to forget. :uhoh:

I was once told that for every pound in the tank over 200Ibs is 2 pounds less on the hook...Anyone else heard that??

Why are there so many NZ 500 Pilots walking away from running machines?? Under FAA, CASA, DGCA & JAR regs its illegal to leave a running machine unless equipped with control locks, not just frictions, but locks??? hmmmmm whether by regulation or not seems to me like a pretty dangerous & unsafe practise :cool:

Get off your high horse its common practice all over the world and totally safe.

Risk versus regulation, don't confuse legality with perceived safety. Many civil aviation authorities have tried to "regulate" safety. It doesn't work. There are many cases where it is safer to leave the controls and check things for yourself. Shutting down may not be "economic". Time, start cycles, control of pax, etc etc. How would you feel letting your pax load and close the doors or walk into the tail rotor while you sat there at the controls all smug and legal?

This has been a lot of debate about it in NZ in recent times. Some flight manuals preclude it. In NZ you may make a case / petition and if there is no objection or the risk is assessed it may be approved subject to conditions.

How many machines with "locks" have had them removed lately by the manufacturers because the pilot has managed to take off with them "on" or worse engage them in flight? I am aware of several. It cuts both ways.

Regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of idiots. Legality does not always mean safety.:rolleyes:

There are more helicopters per head of population in NZ than just about anywhere - 750 machines for 4.3 million people? 105 of those are 500's. Unlike most countries a helicopter in NZ won't even draw a second glance. In fact someone gawking at a helicopter in New Zealand is obviously a "tourist."

Well Said...
Kev.

RVDT, taking off with control locks ON, hmmm how can that be when the controls are LOCKED? So cannot move the controls or the lock is U/S. The 350's I fly have a collective lock but no cyclic lock, installed by the manufacturer & there is no way of taking off with it on - IMPOSSIBLE to move the lever. I flew OH58 on ag work which had both lever & stick lock for the purpose of exiting machine whilst running. We don't leave the Pilot to usher PAX but have a trained ground crew for that job, so no tail rotor mess??? Simpler & safer than the Pilot leaving the controls & maybe a village idiot hopping in for a play whilst the Pilot is on the other side managing PAX.

VF - I would just guess its horses for courses :ok:

Cheers

Ned

Bet there has been more accidents with guys SITTING IN the helicopter then the pilot seat empty and its running. Usually if the helicopter flies away by itself its an insurance job :ok:


This topic has been beaten to death

500 track and blance question
 

I did a track and balance on a 500D recently. At 60kts the vibes are .094 ips and the aircraft is glass smooth. At 120kts the vertical vibes are .113 ips - still smooth but with pulling more torque now the 5per is noticeable and shows up as a growl in your butt {insert joke here.}

I know most "working" 500's rarely get below .2 at 120kts so maybe most folks have never noticed this phenomenon before. Running a spectrum shows the 5 per is .579 ips. I know that once the vertical reaches .1 or so it unmasks the 5 per.

Tried posting over on JH but, well you know... :ugh: Any suggestions for minimizing the 5 per without roughening up the ride?

F-W1
We discovered that all the blades weigh a different amount and that the 3 big blade shops master blade all all different weights :ugh:
What we do now is as follows
We puchased a very accurate set of scales where we can measure not only the whole blade but the tip weights as well. We then spraypaint the blades to equalise tip weights as well as total weight. We couldnt believe the difference in ease of balancing the machine. Only problem it does show up is the dampers, which unless they are all of the same age produce a problem. This problem doesnt manifest itself in the hover normally in forward flight when you start to pull a turn, you will then find out which damper is misbehaving. However at this stage the ac is very very smooth.
If you have a mismatch of blades eg blades with different erosion strips on them you will never get it just right !
Best of luck, let us know how uou get on.
By the way what track and balance kit are you using ?

You couldn't do our 135, you seem to know your way round the old blades and ours is rough even though the computer says all is well within limits.:ok:

.094:uhoh: ok for starters