MD 600 for loadlifting
 

Anyone out there used one for longlining ? Seen Fuchs website in Switzerland that were using one to build a mast. Advice appreciated as need something with more lift than a 500, really up to about 900kgs - before everyone says i dont want a 350
Cheers

Just curious.Why don't you want a Squirrel?.

Cheers.

SYH.

Because...
 

I believe that the noise is an argument.
Confined area flyers don't recognised that, but where peoples are living (like in my heavy urbanised Switzerland), is effectively noise a BIG concern.:=

Some times ahead I was adressing an enquire to MD because I was wondering that an helicopter having the same engine like the 407, may lift about the half of it.:ugh:

WHY??

The handling also is not good to perform external load, also we can say that this ship is finally only good for governmental / police duty, and that's it!:{

and.........
 

the ship wasn't used in my country but in Spain (however the ship is really form Fuchs!).:hmm:

I'm trying to be in touch with the manufacturer to look if they could be interessed in somebody flying the 900 for logging.

I'm crazy enough to try this:8!

Sling, prefer to lok out of the door and see the load, almost impossible from the right seat in a squirrel, the 500 is way quicker doing vertical ref than a squirrel plus running expenses of squirrels are rather high!
Heliseo I doubt that a 407 will lift 1800kgs on a hook ( twice that of a 600)

...sorry
 

but I can't believe that the 600 may lift 900 kg off!!!!:hmm:

The AS 350 fit PERFECTLY the aerial work vertical reference!:ok:

I do it usually, however with both door removed (logically) and a line lenght of 40 m!

902 Explorer
 

Have any of you guys used the Explorer for external load lifting?

Any good? :rolleyes:

If noise is the issue get a EC130 then. You also can not get closer to the window and the collective is on your left so you lean over it. There is also a Canadian STC for a bubble window on the pilot window if I remember correctly. Don't let the fenestron scare you-once you are used to it and understand it it is more than sufficient.

Heliso

I can lift 600kgs with a 500 let alone the extra power of a 600. Squirrel is twice the price to buy and twice as expensive to run Just been quoted 390k in Euros to overhaul a B2 engine:ouch:

what about a 530f?

:eek:

Not Stateside it's not. In recent years the E's pricetag has risen to within spitting distance of a B2, with the F now only 10% cheaper than a B3.

I/C

500,

What's the ratio of MD vs EC in Europe used for longline? Think it should be a pointer to what operators has as preferred machinery.(overall)
How about the trouble of getting spare's a while ago for the whole fleet? I know EC, don't have the Bell support either, but in general the 350 series usually only need a bit of Jet-A to be running for a long time:ok:(in my experience, at least)

Nubian, can't agree more! With Jet A1, a bit of grease 8 for the hyd pump and droop ring and a split pin or 2 a 350 will run a ver.........................y long time-so will the 130! Quoting a engine price is valid, but I have been operating with a fleet of 350's, 130's and 120's and unless we stuff it up those parts on Turbomeca's side and especially EC have a long life and unbeatable reliability so I guess one can expect it to cost a bit of money. The scheduled maintenance if done in accordance with the manufacturer Maintenance Program is a breeze due to the margins allowed and a machine should never be grounded unless prefered for these? I stand by these machines despite the French telling you if you do have a problem "it's impossible".:D:D

i used work for an outfit that used to fly 500 D's and the 530 doing production external load work. never flew the 600, although we had one at the time and after i left, the 600 shed its tailboom killing the pilot. while i was there, we did have problems on both the 500 and 530 with m/r blades cracking and before my sentence began with the same company, they had a blade part company with the machine injuring the pilot pretty badly. he was lucky at that. one might think that the a/c were abused but that was not the case.
most of my work now (the same type of work, mind you) is done the the as350 and to a lesser extent the 407. if you ask me, the 350 is by far superior to the other types mentioned. it is powerful, comfortable, has a good heat/demisting system, just as quick as the others with a line on, and very robust.
i have no experience with a fenestron, but i can tell you that the 350 tail rotor authority is easily sufficient.
like VP, i too have a lot of faith in the 350 series.
fp

600 Kgs in a 500 on a longline???, just keep pulling and make it do 900 Kg, problem solved

fad

if only !

To see better Longlining in an Astar.....just cut a hole in the floor and look straight down. Takes a bit to get the hang of...but better then trying to see out the door.....unless your really really tall!

Neckhurts

Cut a hole in the floor, man you want to be in Europe, I cant imagine the grief you would come to in EASA land doing that !!!!!!!!!!

hughes 500, the hole in the floor and bottom panel is actually a EASA approoved optional service bulletin on the 350's. The floor and the panel gets a perspex panel instead and as long as your cleaners does not scratch them to death you see your load literally via the floor. We have quite a few with the sb

I think there are 3 companies making legal instalation "hole in the floor" Vertial Reference Kits...well, legal in Canada anyway. There must be a few hundred Astars in Canada....and pretty much every single one of them has the hole in the floor.....

http://www.chinookaviation.com/window.htm
http://www.dartaero.com/ec350.shtml

VP

I stand corrected !

Hi all what about a Lama they will lift about 1100kg.:ok:

levo,

I don't think the issue is to find a helicopter for external load (quite a few candidates around), only that it seems the Gentleman want a cool-looking helicopter, that cost f...all(that would also disqualify the 500 itself), has no operational costs, can lift more, quicker than any of the other helicopters that has been used for this for decades....

When it comes to the Lama, it will lift less than the B3 and about what a B2 can do, but it's rather thirsty, slow, loud, mx-costs/labour intencive and it's not all that nice if you fly pax with it.

500,

Good luck

We have a B3 with the perplex hole in the floor too. And I hear about left hand B3. Actually I read an article on Vertical Mag talking about it (October/November 2009, page 46).

Regards.

Nubian

And what is wrong with trying to find a helicopter that

1. Costs f all to run
2. Is quicker
3. Can lift more

Actually in my experience the 500 has been way cheaper to run than 206/341/EC120 and yes I have had to write out the cheques personallly when they have gone wrong, have you ?

Quite frankly if you cant offer any advice why waste your time responding:=

MD600N............
 

Things to remember about the 600.

Firstly it wasn't actually "designed" it just grew like Topsy out of a bunch of parts that were laying around in some desperate effort to keep up with the bunch.

Subsequently there are a few shortcomings. The common denominator for the starting point was the existing main rotor blade. Using this blade and 6 of them unfortunately does not give you ideal performance. To generate thrust the blade is not at it's most efficient A of A and hence there is a lot of drag in the rotor that amounts to nothing but wasted energy. Remember this blade is really not much different from the 300 for which it was originally designed, just longer.

At altitude things only get worse. Look at why a 500C will actually outperform a D/E above ~ 10,000'.

It auto's like a greased brick as the disc being so small it is masked by the fuselage. You need about ~80 knots to get some flow into the disc.

Then there is the little Notar quirk on touchdown in a full on auto. You get anti-torque when you don't need it! Unless you lead with right pedal you probably wont recover from the yaw to the left!

The fuel system is a little strange and attention must be paid to its care and maintenance. It can be put together backwards or incorrectly as I found when having "low fuel" lights with an indication and timing said the fuel was definitely in the tank. Investigation revealed the tank put together incorrectly at manufacture. One of the motive fuel hoses was pushing the baffle down in the tank, yes it would have stopped. Think about the consequences of one of the check valves in the tank not closing properly! I always had reservations about nose down attitude with a sling load.

Another odd one is when you line up with a longline you need to aim a little to the left as the helicopter kind of "migrates" to the right as you come to a hover.

Hover with a tailwind - no brainer. Easy. Careful with the Left pedal though as you have a fenestron that is buried in the tail somewhere making it even less efficient. A believe MD actually pay a royalty to EC for the design. Then they went and chopped all the blades off!

Some of the spinoffs have been introduced to the smaller aircraft in the MD range to their benefit. The 600 MGB is installed/can be retrofitted into the 530, 520, and D/E. It is a good strong gearbox. Pity they didn't put the C47 in the 530. That would be a rocket if it would hang together and it might avoid the surge stall issues that the C30 can sometimes get.

They put the FADEC Manual/Auto switch where the N2 trim is on the smaller models. Casually flicking this switch as some long time operators of the breed would probably do subconsciously and whoops. $$$$$$

Having had the misfortune of putting the second one ever in service and flying it as well as maintaining it, I do have a little insight. Just glad it was not my decision! I could go on here for hours...................

The reason for the introduction of the 600 is a bit like a dog licking it's boll@cks. It's because they can/could. Is it still in production?

The 600 is the answer to a question that nobody asked! Bit like an Edsel.

500,

My first post gave you a direct advice!

RVDT's post will help you (if that's what you want)

If that doesn't help, try Santa....not long left to put in your wishes:ok:

Nubian

Your advice in your first post just said what everyone does in Europe, I was asking had anyone used a 600 for lifting. Yes I know all about 350's, a 500 with 500kgs on a longline will whap the tits off a 350 when it comes to cycle times. I was curious as to whether a 600 would be in the same mold as the 500 or a complete pig.
If you have experience on a 600 then will be very pleased to accept your advice.

(A 500 with 500kgs on a longline will whip the tits of a 350), i dont think so buddy, a 350 will run rings a round a 500 longlineing:confused:

Man the AS350B3+ will pull the pants off a 500 every time; lifting twice the load each lift around the same speed so much much more efficient to operate. We can pick up 1,200kg at 5,000' at 30oC. She is totally reliable, always reaches its TBO. But the 500 or 530 hmmm NOT so. 500 sexy YES but not PAX freindly :confused:. 350 work horse YEP & PAX friendly YEP :ok:

MD902 Explorer for Loadlifting
 

Has anyone got any experience of the 902 loadlifting?

The 902 has a NOTAR so hot & high??? forget it!!! go with the best lift with a AS350B3+

So it should be okay at Sea Level then.

The 600 is a nightmare, that's why there are so few in Canada. The accident in BC last year was a combination of pilot error and 600 error. It's a typical chop and cut engineering job, and it flies like it.

The accident you are referring to with the blade departure is almost exclusively due to abuse of the machine and blades, the pilot it happened to will tell you as much... All five were cracked, and after many thousands of hours in the 500's I've only ever seen one, it was abuse no doubt. He was young and doing work with almost no supervision while trying to keep up to the experienced guys, classic scenario.

RH

And this one:


Where on Earth do you people get this stuff?

I split my time between these two types for the most part, and almost all of it is long line work. THERE IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A 500, of this I can assure you. That said, comparing an AS350 from BA on up to B3 with a 500 is apples and oranges and nearly a waste of time. For the pilot and in terms off shear speed, particularly on production jobs with 150-200ft of line, the 500 is a FAR superior machine... The only issue is she just doesn't lift enough anymore as the industry has evolved and the loads with it.

RH

Yep at sea level the AS350B3+ will pluck her legal max 1,400kg with ease till around ~38oC :ok:

902
 

I'm looking at lifting with a 902 Explorer , any tips?

RH,
there have been a number of incidents in canada involving 500's with blades cracking. some have caused the aircraft to crash with at least one fatality.
i have personally had cracked blades found on the machine that i had been flying almost exclusively for several month previously and i can assure you that it had not been over-torqued. not at least by me. this was doing seismic in the prairies which involves many torque events in a short period of time. the fatality that i refer to above happened to an outfit that did/does shake-block flying on the coast and it did admittedly happen to a machine with PMA blades. this is why MD came out with that silly inspection to be performed after 200 torque events or 25 hrs. 200 torque events isn't many when doing production work.
the 350 series can indeed keep up with a 500 in pretty much every way when it comes to production work. in an astar an experienced driver can fly a longline just as effectively as a 500 driver it just takes more experience/practice/skill. call it what you will. where the 350 shines is that it can carry enough fuel to actually get some work done before having to go for more, it is as robust as any other design that i can think of if not more, engineers love it because it is easy to work on and will designed, it is comfortable for both the pax and pilot, the heat and demist work at all temperatures without having to have tubes run all over the cockpit. i could go on but i just did a day of longlining in my astar at 7500 feet carrying loads that are probably at least twice what a 500 would carry under these conditions and doing it just as quickly but much more efficeintly.
admittedly the 600 i do not know much about, except one of my former colleagues is now dead because one fell apart on him. for years before his accident he had referred to the 600 that was in our fleet at the time as "Christine", like the car that steven king wrote about.
the 900/902 are apparently decent aircraft and i'd like to try one out one day, but you wont catch me in any of the other hughes/boeing/MD pieces of garbage.
bye for now
FP

Well said FP, could,nt agree more

thanks!:}...