Hughes 500 vs. Bell 206
Badwater Bill
I have a mission where I need to transport myself at 250 lb and my
wife to a high altitude home at 10,000 msl about 200 miles away from
our primary home. I'd like to be able to land the chopper at 10k
without falling out at the end as I come out of ETL. I have been
asking many people around here about the differences between a 206 and
a 500. Most say the 206 is the machine of choice. However, I just
got access to a 500 for a cheap block rental price ($350/hr). If I go
in with about 30 gallons of fuel and only two of us (she's about 130
lb), what do you guys think? Will I have enough guts and rotor to do
it safely if I use a shallow approach and just take it easy?
I like the 150 knot cruise of the 500 over the slower 206. But, the
206 has a lot higher inertia rotor system and is built for people
comforts much more so than the 500. I just don't want to bust my ass.
I haven't been able to get the performance numbers on either one of
them yet...No POH yet. Just thought I'd ask here.
diethelm
topic. I do not fly for a living but for recreation. Here is what I have
found.
You can get all of the performance statistics for the 500 and the eurocopter
ec120b on the internet. You can email bell and they will email you the
stuff on a 206. This data includes all the performance charts found in the
POH.
I am leaning towards the 500. Why? The performance is actually better than
the other two but the performance for the ec120 is close. If you are buying
new, MD is very aggressive about pricing if you keep beating on them. Bell
is very firm and I have not talked to Eurocopter about a new one. Used, the
500's are strong but most of them have been used as workhorses. There are a
few executive ships but their owners want a price that is within 150k of a
new one. At the end of the day, I do not believe a 500 is any less
comfortable than a 206 in the front but the back does suck in a 500 compared
to a 206. The D models are worse in the back than the E's but all the
"experts" say the D actually is a higher performance model because of weight
and because of the nose is more clean.
If you go to 206 or 500, avoid the c20r like the plague. Although it has
slightly better performance than a c20b, they are simply not Allison/Rolls
Royce's best invention. The c20r costs more but is not a good of an engine.
Too high strung.
There are a couple of used ec120b's on the market that are pretty reasonable
priced given they have a couple hundred hours. Since it is a newer design,
it is simply a nicer aircraft, has great performance but it is heavier and
it has a TurboMeca engine and you can only have them overhauled at the
factory in Texas and I am told you need to grab the ankles. There are a ton
of modules for the Allison/Rolls Royce engines in the market place so they
are very competitive priced.
I am going to go to HAI in Orlando this year where I can see all the
aircraft. My bet is that given the economy, now may be the time to beat
people up if new is what you are looking for.
Badwater Bill <bill...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bebf29f....@news.earthlink.net...
Norm Melick
>
> I have the same questions and have been doing a lot of research on this
> topic. I do not fly for a living but for recreation. Here is what I have
> found.
Actually, the performance of the 206 and the 500 are both pretty anemic
at 10,000 feet with the C20B engine. The C20R engine is a great engine
at altitudes above 5000'.
Norm
Steve JACOBS
was the last time you landed a helo at 10K ft....I would seriously suggest
you find a tame CFI and go do some limited power approaches and take offs
just to review and refresh the basics of high alt ops.....I would hate to
read about your flight in the "crash comics".....otherwise have fun......and
I'd go for the 500E or F ifn I could get one (thats what we used in New
Guinea !!!).
--
Cheers 'n Beers .....Steve Jacobs :-)
Melbourne, Australia.
diethelm
and I admit I do not have any experience with the "flying" of the R over the
B but from a maintenance standpoint, the R's are tough. Here was the
experience of our engineering department on a test cell.
The R's were much more difficult to build to simply make spec power whereas
we could guarantee spec plus 8% at cruise and +10% at max take off on a B.
The R's power deteriorated much quicker over the 1750 hours to a mini than
the B. The R's almost never made it to 1750. In essence by approximately
600 hours, the R actually had less power on the test cell than the B.
The "Super R" or "R+" kits which improved flow characteristics of the
compressor and third and fourth stage nozzles in the turbine did help, but
were in excess of $35,000 for the "upgrade" of which the operator had to pay
not RR. RR had a $10,000 rebate in 2001 for this kit so it was still 25k
for parts alone.
Our customers also had the excitement of the tendency of the R's to have
compressor stalls which could be quite exciting the first couple of times it
happened.
The overhaul costs of an R compressor was approximately 15k more than a B
and 10k more for a turbine overhaul assuming you had already upgraded to the
Super R. If not look out as you need to do your overhaul and upgrade.
The R's had an incidence of time continued repairs in excess of twice the
B's, because they ran hotter, and were built "tighter" on the flows, had a
greater tendency to have rubs of the third stage wheel on the fourth stage
nozzle and the carbon seals tended to develop rubs simply because they ran
hotter. Also, because these engines lay at a 45% angle in the 500, the
500's had a lot more problems from the exhaust collector pinching the fourth
stage nozzle and causing rubs because of heat cycles. The R did not have as
many rub problems in the 206.
The R is simply a hot rod version of the B and the most experienced wrenches
could get as much or more power out of a B as an R and the R was simply
temperamental and more costly to maintain.
I am a rookie at flying but the economic experience was that the R provided
more power at first but less power as time to overhaul elapsed and they were
more expensive to purchase (25k option at MD) and more expensive to overhaul
and they would rarely actually make it to overhaul.
However, according to the charts for a 500E, the R can hover IGE at 10,000
feet with max weight whereas a B is 125 pounds short of max weight but that
assumes the R is making power and my engine experience was that after 600
hours, there was no difference and the B would actually maintain the
performance as the R dropped off.
I do not disagree with your points that in perfect repair and maintenance
the R is better, it is simply from my experience, in excess of twice the
cost per hour to operate in the real world than the B and I just do not feel
that the 183 pounds of performance on the chart is worth all the money.
However, I am open to counter arguments because whatever I buy, I will have
for twenty years.
But on the other had there is the 530F with a C30 in it and it will really
perform in the high altitude but sucks the jp4.
Sorry for rambling
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BEC19B6...@worldnet.att.net...
Bernie the Bunion
> I owned a Rolls Royce Authorized Maintenance Center
Good stuff snipped for brevity.
That was a really interesting post.... Thanks
Norm Melick
Yes, very informative. I have about 100 hours flying the C20R. It was a
dog in the Texas environment. It was great in the Rockies. I don't know
about the "R" being a hot rodded "B", (sounds a little simplistic), but
the boys at Bell told me that the "R" was not designed for sea level
operatons, rather mountanious operatons. I will assure you that there
was a marked difference in perfomance from running an "R" around Dallas,
and running the same engine around Denver, Steamboat Springs and
Leadville. I do agree with your points about maintenance/operating costs
for the "R".
The C30 was indeed, the best.
Norm
Badwater Bill
<sk...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>I agree with Norm about the C20 R above 5000ft....having said all that when
>was the last time you landed a helo at 10K ft....I would seriously suggest
>you find a tame CFI and go do some limited power approaches and take offs
>just to review and refresh the basics of high alt ops.....I would hate to
>read about your flight in the "crash comics".....otherwise have fun......and
>I'd go for the 500E or F ifn I could get one (thats what we used in New
>Guinea !!!).
Thanks for all the valuable input fellas. I have full intention of
doing it a few times in no wind conditions with a high time CFI I've
found here in Vegas. This is a guy who flew a lot of turbine stuff in
fire fighting and logging for 30 years. I'd never try that one on my
own without some guidance the first few times. It's cold up there
most of the time from now through May. I'll try it one morning at
about zero degrees F, the first time. And, with only the two of us on
board with half fuel. The helicopter is an F model. I don't know
what engine it has in it yet but I will find out next week. As I've
said above, many people have told me that the 206 has much better
capability up there with the C30 engine especially. I heard one swing
wing jock who flies out of Bryce Canyon tell me that he uses a 206
because the 500 runs out of rotor up high. I didn't quite understand
what he was saying. What do you guys think he meant? That you go to
full AOA(full pitch) and full power but you just don't have enough
lift?
I appreciate all the input on this, thanks.
Bill
Badwater Bill
>Yes, very informative. I have about 100 hours flying the C20R. It was a
>dog in the Texas environment. It was great in the Rockies. I don't know
>about the "R" being a hot rodded "B", (sounds a little simplistic), but
>the boys at Bell told me that the "R" was not designed for sea level
>operatons, rather mountanious operatons. I will assure you that there
>was a marked difference in perfomance from running an "R" around Dallas,
>and running the same engine around Denver, Steamboat Springs and
>Leadville. I do agree with your points about maintenance/operating costs
>for the "R".
>
>The C30 was indeed, the best.
>
>Norm
Interesting posts you guys. Thanks.
Norm, since you've flown at altitude, can you take a moment and tell
us what the major differences are in the way you have to fly? I mean,
I'm guessing here but I'd think you would make a long, shallow
approach to a wide area in a meadow so you didn't have to arrest a
rapid descent with a lot of power (which you don't have) at 10,000
msl. And, you'd keep it in ETL as long as you could, hopefully just
dropping out of ETL once you are over the LZ. Am I thinking correctly
here? What other things do you have to watch for? I'm sort of
guessing about the TKO too. No rapid movements on collective and a
shallow, easy push on the cyclic to get her moving with minimal disk
tilt. And then there's temp. I am wondering if you ever max out on
torque before you max out on temp?
And, how about max temp. Do you reach it easier up there in the thin
air? Seems to me that you wouldn't reach max torque or temp before
you started to droop Nr a bit...but I'm just sort of thinking about it
since I've never done it. The highest I've ever been in a turbine was
flying Huey's out of Lake Tahoe about 30 years ago and I never maxed
anything out because we really watched the loads closesly.
Bill
Bill
Walter Hawn
with Allisons, C20 thru 30.
Allisons were revolutionary engines in their day, and matured into a very
good powerplant in some really great helos, especially the 206 and 500.
They were designed at a time for a mission, that the combination fulfilled
wonderfully. But the Turbomeca would be my choice over the Allison, in any
affordable application-especially if a 350 would fit you.
If you like, I'll get my flight manual out this evening and run some
numbers, mission assignments permitting I think I know where my 206
training manual is, but don't have any 500 stuff...
I'd be surprised if my old ('83) 350B didn't walk all over any 206, and give
a 500 a hard time. Plus it's got a really nice cabin and scads of baggage
compartments, etc.
More info at your request, response to my email.
180 Walt
diethelm
your comments but the resale price of that helicopter is in the ball park of
a Long Ranger which brings a whole new level of comparison versus the 206B3
or 500. I used the EC 120 as a more comparable craft relative to a ranger
or a 500 but if you move up from their, I agree that the AS350 is much
better than the L3 or L4.
I am just loathe to have no competition with engine repairs and overhauls as
those engines can only be overhauled at the factory places versus Allison
has 29 authorized maintenance centers (three of which are owned by RR) and
who knows how many independent shops and a boat load of PMA parts some of
which are better than OEM and some worse.
I love the debate though as all of you keep moving me from one aircraft to
another as I debate what to buy.
Walter Hawn <weave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CNgH7.181466$W8.62...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Norm Melick
>
> Norm, since you've flown at altitude, can you take a moment and tell
> us what the major differences are in the way you have to fly? I mean,
> I'm guessing here but I'd think you would make a long, shallow
> approach to a wide area in a meadow so you didn't have to arrest a
> rapid descent with a lot of power (which you don't have) at 10,000
> msl.
Absolutely.
> And, you'd keep it in ETL as long as you could, hopefully just
> dropping out of ETL once you are over the LZ. Am I thinking correctly
> here? What other things do you have to watch for?
Yes. Absolutely. Plan on doing accurate analysis of performance charts,
weight and balance. etc., etc. Remember retreating blade stalls? No
abrupt maneuvers, steep turns, etc. Especially at altitude. Avoid
hovering in tall grass. Plan on doing your flying during the coolest
part of the day. You may not be able to hover and go arounds could be a
bitch, so plan your arrivals and departures carefully. In fact, start
thinking running T.O.'s and landings as the rule, rather than the
exception.
> I'm sort of guessing about the TKO too. No rapid movements on collective and a
> shallow, easy push on the cyclic to get her moving with minimal disk
> tilt.
Yes. One way I was taught to determine if I had enough power to takeoff
(Bell) was to bring the ship to a hover, and try to make a left pedal
turn. If you couldn't do it, re-think your decision to takeoff.
> And then there's temp. I am wondering if you ever max out on torque before you max out on temp?
Yes. In the winter time.
> And, how about max temp. Do you reach it easier up there in the thin
> air? Seems to me that you wouldn't reach max torque or temp before
> you started to droop Nr a bit...
Well, that's the thing. In the winter time, 10,000' is cold. In the
summer time, it's not so cold. Toss in the operating gross weight of
your ship, and again, you could "torque out" before "temping out".
> but I'm just sort of thinking about it
> since I've never done it. The highest I've ever been in a turbine was
> flying Huey's out of Lake Tahoe about 30 years ago and I never maxed
> anything out because we really watched the loads closesly.
Sounds to me as if you got a good handle on it. Just remember, at higher
altitudes, you are operating your rotor blades at higher angles of
attack, which requires more power. Normal ascent, hovering and descent
may be impossible. Running takeoffs and landings may become necessary,
and any abrupt maneuvers could induce blade stalls.
I love the 206, but if it were me, and I was a billionaire, I'd get a
gazelle!
Norm Melick
Jeff Newman
Don't forget to think about that line of demarcation....that line which
exists between the path of the wind forced upward by slopes, and the path of
your helicopter on your way to land. Best way to fly is to stay on the high
side of the line, then check below to see if you have power (you'll have
plenty above) well before you get too close to the landing environment.
Eventually you have to go below the line, and if you haven't established you
have enough power prior to that point, you may not have time to scoop it
out.
Aloha,
Jeff
ps......mini-500 stuff is waaay in the past...sorry bout that
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BEF91DD...@worldnet.att.net...
Jim Eli
before you max out on temp?
>
> Yes. In the winter time.
>
> > And, how about max temp. Do you reach it easier up there in the thin
> > air? Seems to me that you wouldn't reach max torque or temp before
> > you started to droop Nr a bit...
>
> Well, that's the thing. In the winter time, 10,000' is cold. In the
> summer time, it's not so cold. Toss in the operating gross weight of
> your ship, and again, you could "torque out" before "temping out".
>
Looking over the US Army's Operator Manual for the OH-58C helicopter, at
10,000 feet (pressure altitude) it's impossible to reach a torque limit.
And for most weather conditions in the lower 48 states, you will most surely
reach a temperature limit (or compressor limit when it's very cold) before
hitting a torque limit at 5,000 feet and above. Also, remember to turn off
the heater (bleed air system) if power is an issue. Most helicopters will
see around 4-8% maximum power increases with the bleed-air turned off.
Bart
thread. (Total shame, its interesting) I looked all over my 206 Manpages
and could not find a graph that similar to the one you describe for
the OH58. Any way you can give me a pointer to where I might have a
look at it?
Whats bugging me is your cold temperature comments below. Do you mean
that you'll hit the lower or upper limit on Gas Producer in really cold temps?
Bart
Norm Melick
> Looking over the US Army's Operator Manual for the OH-58C helicopter, at
> 10,000 feet (pressure altitude) it's impossible to reach a torque limit.
> And for most weather conditions in the lower 48 states, you will most surely
> reach a temperature limit (or compressor limit when it's very cold) before
> hitting a torque limit at 5,000 feet and above. Also, remember to turn off
> the heater (bleed air system) if power is an issue. Most helicopters will
> see around 4-8% maximum power increases with the bleed-air turned off.
Impossible? In the winter time? I don't think so.
I've been trying to find my 206 manual and school notes, so far with no
success. All I remember is, that in the dead of winter time, at Mason
City, Iowa, it certainly was possible to "torque out" before we "temped
out". Since you say you "looked over" the manual, I'll defer to you for
the moment, but I don't think what you're saying is correct. I remember
Mason City in the winter time all too well.
Did the OH-58's have snow baffle's?
Norm
Bart
I found the section that talks about rotor droop as a function of
N1 overspeed in the 206's POH. But my take on this is that it would
happen high and hot, not low and cold. Not that I know that much, but
I have to agree with Norm that you'd tend to run into torque limits
before TOT limits on cold days.
Bart
Jim Eli
> Impossible? In the winter time? I don't think so.
>
> I've been trying to find my 206 manual and school notes, so far with no
> success. All I remember is, that in the dead of winter time, at Mason
> City, Iowa, it certainly was possible to "torque out" before we "temped
> out". Since you say you "looked over" the manual, I'll defer to you for
> the moment, but I don't think what you're saying is correct. I remember
> Mason City in the winter time all too well.
>
> Did the OH-58's have snow baffle's?
>
> Norm
Norm,
The manual I'm looking at shows the maximum torque available is 99%
(10,000 PA and -40 degrees C). That is the lowest temperature on the
chart. As temperature increases, torque available decreases (i.e. at
10,000 & 0 deg, max Q is 89%). If the bleed air is on max Q is only
94%. No baffles or reverse flow inlets. What kind of OAT did you
experience?
Jim
diethelm
repair.
Bart <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3BFC1977...@nospam.com...
Norm Melick
> Norm,
> The manual I'm looking at shows the maximum torque available is 99%
> (10,000 PA and -40 degrees C). That is the lowest temperature on the
> chart. As temperature increases, torque available decreases (i.e. at
> 10,000 & 0 deg, max Q is 89%). If the bleed air is on max Q is only
> 94%. No baffles or reverse flow inlets. What kind of OAT did you
> experience?
> Jim
Hmmm. Interesting. -40C is the same as -40F. My OAT was -25F. I had the
C20B engine, heater, reverse flow inlets and snow baffles. This really
isn't making sense to me. Every turbine I ever flew reached torque
limitations before it reached the TOT limitations, in the winter time.
But I'm wondering, you're using C18 (OH-58) data right? I never flew a
C18 in the winter time.
I'm still looking for my books.
Norm
diethelm
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BFC73C2...@worldnet.att.net...
Norm Melick
>
> Could it be that it is a chart for a straight C20 as opposed to a C20B?
Well, I don't know. I don't think there is much difference between the
two. I have a friend or two at Bell and at Aviall. I'll try to get a
hold of them. It has been my experience that at higher temperatures, a
turbine engine TOT limit is reached before torque, and as temperature
decreases, the torque limit is reached before reaching an engine
temperature limit.
I guess that's why God made performance charts.
Norm
Stan Gosnell
<3BFE9377...@worldnet.att.net>:
> It has been my experience that at higher temperatures, a
>turbine engine TOT limit is reached before torque, and as temperature
>decreases, the torque limit is reached before reaching an engine
>temperature limit.
IME, altitude makes more difference, or at least as much difference, than
temperature, within normal extremes. At or near sea level, I've never
reached temp limits in a 206 unless there was another problem. I have had
the bleed air valve stick open, which caused high TOT, but recycling the
switch generally cured that. Otherwise, torque is the limiting factor, at
least up to 100 deg F. This is with C20B through C30's. In the Sikorsky
S76A, with C30's, you have to watch the TOT, but in 206's I've never seen
the TOT limits reached before torque.
--
Regards,
Stan
Norm Melick
> Otherwise, torque is the limiting factor, at least up to 100 deg F. This is with C20B through C30's.
> In the Sikorsky S76A, with C30's, you have to watch the TOT, but in 206's I've never seen the TOT
> limits reached before torque.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Stan
You know, something else I remember is that the engine is rated at 375
SHP, and the transmission was rated at 315 SHP. This could explain a few
things.
Norm
Stan Gosnell
Absolutely. Often transmissions are the limiting factor. Many
manufacturers derate the engine to insure adequate performance at high
altitudes, & rate the transmission at the engine's high altitude/high temp
output.
--
Regards,
Stan
The Walkers
>
> You know, something else I remember is that the engine is rated at 375
> SHP, and the transmission was rated at 315 SHP. This could explain a few
> things.
>
> Norm
Good point to remember when comparing different helicopter models, Norm. In
the BO105, with fairly high transmission limits, TOT is reached first on
just about anything hotter that ISA standard day.
Badwater Bill
>
>Good point to remember when comparing different helicopter models, Norm. In
>the BO105, with fairly high transmission limits, TOT is reached first on
>just about anything hotter that ISA standard day.
>
That's interesting. So the torque is artificially reduced from what
the engine really can do because of the weak link in the chain...the
tranny.
I read a few comments you guys made about snow baffles and reverse
flow. What does that mean?
Thanks,
Bill
Gaylon Seay
> That's interesting. So the torque is artificially reduced from what
> the engine really can do because of the weak link in the chain...the
> tranny.
In the original 206A with the C18 Engine -- the tranny and engine matched
Hp.(at least at ideal conditions)
As it became apparent that this was only useful at sealevel type conditions
(zero density altitude) the engine was upgraded to a higher Hp to allow the
engine to perform up to the tranny under a much greater variety of density
altitudes.
As the density altitude increases the engine performance gradually degrades
so at some point it would exactly equal the capability of the tranny with
the TOT at max.
Above this point the performance is limited by TOT.
Below this point the performance is limited by Torque.
With a C20 -- 400Hp -- (not the C20B -420Hp) I find that at Density
Altitudes of 5000 to 6000ft. I begin to have to get into the yellow (5
Minute limit) on TOT to lift off. Once I touched the red with 5 adults on
board and a very hot day (elevation 3200ft.). I don't remember the exact
Density Altitude. Also was doing a straight up and out to clear a tree about
12ft. tall (big tree for this area)
Gaylon
Bell206L4
Stevenatherton
John Bicker
wrote:
This post is hilarious - Check your knuckles for callouses.