Bell 412
 

I am wondering as a general enquiry what the operating cost of a B412 would be approximately just as a pax mover machine per hour. I have heard several wearied and wonderful figures that vary by 400%. They look damn expensive little feller's to run. Roughly what kind of pay load would you have to play with on a 150NM run with a 1hr IFR reserve? Thanks, and nothing to technical please !! ;)

c'mon, roll up- roll up, someone out there must know something.

Teacup

Bell Helicopter quotes the "direct operating cost" of the B412EP at $750.18USD per flight hour, based on fuel @ $1.50/gal and maintenance labor at $50/hr. For operational purposes you would also have to add indirect operating costs such as insurance, crewing, financing costs, depreciation, facilities etc etc. What did I hear you say, "Ripley's believe it or not??"

How many hours do you want to fly per month?

Single Pilot or 2 Pilot ops, day only or day and night, 5 days per week or 7 day per week, EP, HP or SP???

I will work it out for you based on real world costs if you have that information available.

LE

TC -

If you're after detailed data, suggest you try Conklin & Decker (www.conklindd.com). Addition of indirect costs takes the hourly rate for the 412 to ~ $900/hr.

Bell 412
 

Can anyone help me with B412 rotor blades data?

I'm looking for root&tip chord line, and construction angle of attack difference betwen tip&root.

Thanks for any info!

This all that I have found, does it help?

From this site ... EngTips

Wing Root Airfoil - Boeing VR-7

Wing Tip Airfoil - Wortmann FX 69-H-080

I'm amazed that data like that exists. Thanks fot the help, but i would need the actual length of chord line.

I managed sort of get the angle out of some photos. Thanks for the tip on airfoil sprocket. I got 10° difference between root and tip chord line. Can anyone confirm this?

If i got this far, chord line length shouldn't be a problem. :}

Bell 412
 

Scenario: [B] Take off from a oil platform that is at 100' amsl.

Helicopter: Bell 412 SP, 11400 lbs TOW. (2 crew, 10 pax + baggage/freight.)

Weather: Sea level, OAT-32 degrees C, Wind-Light and variable, QNH-1013 Mbar.

On rotation you loose an engine and through your superior handling skills, knife edge reactions, you prevent ditching and after nursing your helicopter, climbing at the guaranteed 150 feet/minute ROC at 65 kts, you eventually reach a safe flight condition and altitude.

Now having to fly back to a onshore alternate for a single engine landing, what would the realistic figures be one can expect for indicated airspeed in kts and fuel consumption in lbs/hr?

Data I have been given to work on is 90 kts and 700lbs/hr single engine at loiter power? Loiter power, then you will never reach your destination and I think 90 kts is pushing it? :confused:

Some expert advice will be appreciated please!

(I hope I didn't bring back to many scary nightmares:\ )

OAT Minus 32C ?

Hope you mean +32, but if it was me I'd plan on max approx 80kts IAS @ 600lbs/hr.

Hope it helps.

Sea level, OAT-32 degrees C, Wind-Light and variable, QNH-1013 Mbar. = Sea level, OAT- +32 degrees C, Wind- Light and variable, QNH- 1013 Mbar.

Thanks NEO, what do you base the figure of 600lbs/hr on, experience or from the FM?

I looked again and the 700lbs/hr at loiterpower is a twin engine figure, but it is also the figure stated for single engine operations?:ugh: RTFM!

Glad to be of assistance. Unfortunately it's based on experience, over around 50 miles of unlandable/unditchable swamp. I have never found anything in the FM that covers SE fuel consumption adequately, although you can contact BHT directly on their website. Maybe they have some accurate SE cruise fuel figures ?

Cheers.:ok:

Let me, guess, Warri, PH, Eket area... say no more! Been there done that, mostly on singles... glad not to have had any trouble and lived to move on to the next level of fear and trepidation.:eek: :ooh:

Recuperator
 

Tell me the secret please!!!

What magic are you using to get a heavy 412 away from a platform on a ISA +17 nil wind day in the OEI, at the critical point.!!!!

[Assumming you have standard 3B engines?]

My experience would have you upside down after hitting your tail on the edge, or sitting happily on the floats looking smugly at each other.

OMR,

I agree. I was talking about cruise figures. Getting away from a platform at those weights etc would be a real feat with -3Bs.

OMR
 

OMR,

I said All hypothetically speaking off course, to get to the figures for OEI flight fuel consumption and IAS in the cruise as NEO rightly helped with.


You saidI assume that you had the latter as your experience, as very few people survive the drop from a hundred foot inverted coming of the rig after hitting their tails on the deck. I have seen the evidence of that happening, and it wasn’t pretty.

Now if you have had the “My experience” part, please share it and make a wiser man out of me and at the same time offer your OEI figures for the cruise flight home as described in the post.

Your handle, OMR, is probably not because you are a bold pilot, but rather a old pilot as I know very few old and bold pilots. Sharing your story and your experience will be highly appreciated and I could very well learn something from it.


:ooh:

The engines that we house are PT6T-3BF engines.

Pretty reliable in the twinpack configuration, I would say.

OMR, NEO, Pretty low on power as you would say.

I agree fully. The nice thing though of the reliability of the remaining engine is that it\'s lack of power will most probably take you to the scene of the accident/ditching...:mad:

Get some of the Aramco pilots to explain their magic....they fly the 412EP's at 11,900 and do not cut weight except for night flying....and it gets rather warm in Saudi....

Their operation (off-shoot of PHI according to most folks in the know) does not consider CAT A performance at all....nor do they use any sort of identifiable CAT A profiles.

As I recall...with some clarity due to the lack of adult malt beverages in that part of the world....they basically used miminal climb and accelerated as quickly as possible to 60 kts....on takeoff from the rig and then considered that CDP of sorts. Lofting off some of the elevated decks there that were all of 25 feet above the briny....that could be an interesting proposition in my view.

Recuperator
 

Sorry, I cant highlight an actual event, otherwise I may not be here to report the magic!!

My experience has been around Test Flying the various profiles at various Weights, Temperatures, AMSL and Crew Experience [discipline] levels.

The scenario described by yourself would be nearly impossible to execute successfully, regardless of the competence of the crew. There are many variables to consider in “your” departure, but if all goes wrong at the worse time, then you will not get safely away.

Sassy, as you know those machines are on the N Register.

The mention of the: WAT Chart, OEI Climb, MTOW and 100% Torque is a revelation. Shudder!!!

Remember this is a SP with 3B's, not an EP with DF engines.

OMR
 

Thanks for the input, will definately keep it in mind next time they want to load everything and the kitchen zinc in the back! Sometimes I wonder if it is worth it, especially in the Middle East under Sharia law...:\

Had the single engine fuel consumption question come up in preparing for a new contract. After doing a lot of work with FlightSafety and Bell Helicopters it was determined that the fuel consumption single engine at max cont. was the same in the PT6T-3b as twin engine consumption. The airspeed will depend at on what you can maintain but we had come up with 90 knots in the simulator.

Hope this helps.

Thanks mate, it's a bit scary considering the distances you have to go sometimes to the rigs, with limited fuel and maximum payload. That onshore alternate can seem like a mighty long way to go!

Changing the post a bit, any comments; pros and cons in taking off from the centre of the deck compared to moving as close as possible to the edge of the deck before commencing the rotation into forward flight.

Your imputs will be highly appreciated!:ooh:

Try this.....
 

This was an interesting airing of views from a while back:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=54120

The usual technique over here is to get as close to the edge as possible, with the rotor over the water, and the toes of the skids just barely inside the edge of the deck. The rationale for this is that the wind hits the wall below and is deflected up and into the rotor, providing some additional lift. The wind usually goes up, and then on the downwind side of the heliport is actually blowing down, much reducing lift, so the best place to be is as close to the edge as possible. All this is assuming a standard production platform heliport, but the same effect is usually felt coming off a drilling rig. The technique used when at 11,899 lb, little or no wind, and very hot, is to get to the edge, and move nothing. It's important to be very smooth, and to move neither the cyclic, the collective, nor the pedals unless absolutely necessary, and then as little as possible. Stirring things around destroys lift. We hover there at 100% torque, and eventually some lift comes along, which can be felt as the helicopter starts to rise. As this happens, smoothly lower the nose to move off the deck, and do nothing quickly, or else the deck may rise up and strike the tail. If 100% torque provides enough power, then the takeoff is made in one continuous movement. You usually know before the skids break contact whether there is enough power to go immediately, but it's still a good idea to do things slowly.

Some may be horrified at the technique, but it works, as evidenced by tens of thousands of takeoffs annually, without a single accident that I'm aware of during the past 20 years. The exposure time is minimal, a couple of seconds at most, and everyone involved has accepted the risk.

Thanks!
 

Thanks RW, not trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes makes life easier!:ok:

GP, it's the same techique I use when heavy, by moving forward till the blades are over the sea and skids just inside the deck. The wind does make a huge difference!

Company policy dictates 85% IGE max to ensure enough power in hand to be able to get to 15-20 feet vertical, before rotating. But some of the SP's just can't do it from 85%, without a lot of praying, nursing and swearing in the same breath. :mad:
Thanks for the input!

Anything said on approach angles somewhere?

Especially taking into consideration wind / no wind, heavy / light load, turbulence and cross wind landings (especially wind from the right side) with the Bell 412's? :\

Your not writing a book by any chance are you???

Please don't think that the standard upheld in the GOM is the accepted International Standard, it is not.

If you have to wait for a gust of wind to become airborne, then your far to heavy, and negligent. But maybe don’t know it!!!

OMR....It is amazing how one large company....OLOG...with its two major companies...Bristow and Air Log ...can operate so differently. Not only between companies...but within the company itself at its various bases. The local management has as much effect on operating practice as does the Home Office crowd (if not more so).

Throw in the different governmental agencies overseeing the operations and you get a whole different twist yet again.

The FAA sees things much differently than does the CAA...thus Gomers approach the same tasks from a different viewpoint than do their UK licensed brothers (and sisters).

What is right one place...is poison at another...what came out of the Elevated Deck thread seemed to indicate that different techiques seem to yield very similar results but with lots of arguing about which side had the best way.

The GOM method of diving off the decks...and making flat approaches took some getting used to...after doing the Bristow steep...steep...steep approaches. In Nigeria...the takeoffs were not much different beyond the fact we reduced weight for temps in general and greatly reduced weight for Mud Barges surrounded by tall trees....not sure the Gomers would be allowed to do that by company and customer mandate.

Oh Sassy.
 

Your not saying that our GOM colleagues would be forced to trade off their meager safety margins in favor of increased profits?

Surely not.

Its been ten years since I was down in the Gulf, and now fully recognize there are Companies, Authorities and Flightcrew that demand and achieve a higher safety standard.

Cheap safety will cost significantly more in the longer term.

OMR, since the incentive bonuses of most upper level managers, both helicopter and oil companies, are based on quarterly performance, there is little reason for them to care about long-term costs. With the profit levels being posted, lawsuits are only minor annoyances, and there is little evidence that the managers care about the safety of employees other than from an economic standpoint.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've been observing the actions of these companies at close range for well over 20 years, and that has been my consistent impression.

Problem is, the "companies" call the shots !! Like it or not, operators are coerced by them and then go to the authorities to get a "dispensation". Fact of life. Nobody is wrong:mad:

I was not able to attend the PHPA Safety Conference...but heard some good reports about it. One of the statistics advertised there was the helicopter industry kills about 59 pilots per year....and that trend seems to be relatively constant.

Maybe someone that attended can enlighten us on that presentation of statistics?

Regardless of profiles/numbers/manuals etc, there are some things you can't budget for.

Hmmm
 

OMR :ooh: No, definately not writing a book, and not taking anybodies advice as accepted International standard. This forum lends itself to learning more, as there is a vast amount of experience out there.

I am merely fishing for information to take, evaluate and to assimilate, then to use the best from everyone for my own use to improve on my own knowledge and skill, within or as close to company regulations as possible.

As for flying over MAUW, I don't go there! We work on Class 2 and OGE figures for take off, depending on location and with the temperature of the moment, we then calculate what we can lift. The OEW, fuel and manifest weights are added to together to determine TOW and then compared with take off data. Weight then gets adjusted or reduced to stay within allowable TOW parameters. This gets done before every leg on every flight. So there is never a doubt or any guess work involved what our actual TOW is or what figure will give us Class 2 take off performance or OGE performance. I am sure most pilots work on that basis in the offshore industry.

I have been very fortunate to have flown with pilots of various nationalities that have flown in the North Sea, GOM, Nigeria and Middle East, Australia and South Africa and have learnt from each and every one of them! Wasn't all good, some of it was kept as experience on how not to do it. :uhoh:

As SASless said there are differences in the same company. I have seen the flat approaches, the dive off the decks, the steep, steep approaches and have prayed many times! As said in the post Red Wine was refering to:"Flying and helicopter flying per say on and off decks/rigs/ships/mud barges/airfields are not black and white and every situation merits it's own tecnique.

I thoroughly believe that the day you think, as a pilot, that you know everything about helicopter aviation, it's best to step down before your attitude kills yourself, or worse some innocent passenger, who is relying on your skill and knowledge as a professional to get him to his destination safely. He is usually just a worker, a pawn in the system, like you and me and not usually directly involved in management with hidden agendas, short term planning and incentive bonusses.

Unfortunately safety margins do get "adjusted" to make up for profit. Maybe the Sikorsky S92's will be the answer to all this, with it's Cat A performance, with full fuel and full pax, and go capabilities.

But will the companies pay that kind of money, cut into their profits for their workers safety sake?
:confused:

I would still like to hear the pro's and cons on approach profiles though, anybody willing to stick their necks out?:\

At risk of poking again at the hornet's nest, who said that operating with full Cat A from a rig would measurably improve safety?

The data I have seen says that OEI enroute, with minimal exposure time at takeoff and landing is quite sufficient, since we are far more clever at making crashes than to simply wait for an engine to quit.

Yet again, I do wish we were willing to actually fix what causes crashes, rather than what we train for, which is burned into our collective brain, and therefore has our deepest concern, however unreasoned.

Nick,

Why then the full Cat A performance of the 92.....? What drove that decision.....or design criteria?

Notwithstanding that this will raise the hornets from slumber; Nick has managed to avoid comment on Gomer Pylot's post and remark only on the aspirations of Recuperator.

Compared to Recuperator's considered approach (which is based on the practical procedures contained in JAR-OPS 3), the description of the take-off procedure in the GOM results (for me) in a sharp intake of breath.

It might first be appropriate to highlight one particular element of Gomer's post; it has been observed from flight tests that a wind of up to10kts does not give the additional lift that one would expect (hence no wind accountability in the S76C+ Category A helideck procedure for winds below 10kts). Putting the disc over the deck edge might improve on this situation but would it compensate for the loss of lift that would result from the dissipation of ground cushion? Nick probably has the answer to this.

The fact that the authors of JAR-OPS 3 settled for second segment performance (climb performance of 150ft/min at Vy at 1000ft above the take-off altitude) or AEO HOGE was no accident, it ensured that vertical acceleration would be possible and the decision to pull above a limit would not be required.

If one is already applying the take-off Tq of 100% (and going no-where vertically) what if the sudden improvement in lift, due to a transient wind, disappears at the time that the helicopter is in transition over the deck edge? Isn’t this the Las Vegas approach to performance?

How many pilots, faced with this situation, would allow the helicopter to descend rather than pull a ‘transient Tq’! This might not be reportable but is it good practice?

Not so safe on all fronts
 

Maybe all areas of the offshore market needs some attention to detail when it comes to flight operations, human factor, maintenance and training to improve safety and standards in our industry.

Some interesting reading.

The 2004 report for 2002 from the OGP at http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/354.pdf
:eek:

JimL is right, but I use the same logic on this thread that I did when my young son asked me where the knives were kept. I asked him, "Why do you want to know?"


SASless, please understand that my questioning here has NOTHING to do with the performance of ANY aircraft. I am not the S-92, I am a person. I have opinions and ideas that I share here that do not infer ANYTHING about ANY helicopter. I believe the S-92 has the best OEI performance of any aircraft in its class.

I contend that we are channeled by our training from the first flight to think of engines as safety, and this creates an automatic response that hurts us.

More engines, More OEI performance, More safety. This builds in our minds the belief that no other investment in our machines will pay bigger benifits. Our regulators grow from our pilot pool, they are part of our self-hypnosis, so the safety rules grow from this same delusion.

I ask anyone to show the data to prove this wrong-

For twins that have basic OEI capability:

The safety of those aircraft will NOT be increased in any measurable way by adding full OEI performance. If we invest in full OEI performance, we will FAIL to make our aircraft safer, we will just make sure an aircraft with bigger engines crashes in the same way it now does, with all engines running happily while the real cause has been ignored.

Nick,

We have discussed this before...and actually agree about having a focus upon "real" accident causes....vice grinding away with the same old wheel. My point was merely to point out that in previous posts to other threads you have talked of the 92's load it up and go capability. Believe me when I say as an oldtime pilot...I understand the beauty of that capability....but....following your logic that we are only exposed to an engine failure during the critical phase in takeoffs for .0000008 percent of the time...or some such number....then why all the wonderful performance for the 92....maybe some of that weight and power could have been expended upon range and cargo volume and thus step back to the current status of most twin engined helicopters wherein we all risk a saltwater dip should one of the Donks give up the ghost during a takeoff at "max" weight?

Nick, I agree with you on may of the points you've raised, but in that case why haven't the big operators taken on the EH-101 ? 3 engines, total redundancy (so they say) ? Sounds too good to be true.....................