BO-105 engine Q
John Noble
questions about them.
Can someone advise what engines are on this a/c? I know the LS model, of
which they have one, is different too- what's that running? Thanks in
advance!
Chuck Kemp
The 105-CBS have the RR/Allison 250-C20's and the 105-LS has the 250-C30 in
it.
Regards,
Chuck Kemp
"John Noble" <bizzd...@spampacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1Ml09.18007$AJ3.12...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
John Noble
Do you happen to know the HP difference? Is such a gain in HP linear, or
does the advantage vary with altitude/temp/day of the week?
"Chuck Kemp" <chuc...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:uk40t84...@corp.supernews.com...
Neil Fraser
450 SHP springs to mind but I will check Monday.
Neil
"John Noble" <bizzd...@spampacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0No09.18095$Cv4.13...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Neil Fraser
http://www.rotor.com/Aircraft/30.htm
Has most helicopter specs CBS is 420 , LS is 500 per engine.
NEil
"Neil Fraser" <nfra...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Nrp09.106253$Yt.40...@read1.cgocable.net...
Bob Barbanes
the RR/Allison 250-C20B's (420 h.p. per side) it can really haul the mail...at
sea level. However, those engines do run hot! A summer day out in the GOM
would have those puppies running up near the TOT redline in a hover. Oh yeah,
and about that...
A Bell 206B uses the exact same engine which specifies a "top of the green"
(max continuous TOT) power limit of 743 degrees. Again, this is an
<i>engine,</i> not airframe limit. In the Bolkow, MCP is 779 degrees! PHI had
a "recommended" limit of 750 degrees. Whether I adhered to it or not depended
on 1) the altitude at which I was flying, and 2) whether I was using the ECU
(air conditioner). ECU use really cranked up the TOT's. To maintain 750
degree cruise power you'd really have to push the collective down, and I'm just
not fond of piddling along at 65-70%Q. Sorry, but the ship is just so
unpleasant to fly in cruise that I didn't want to spend one extra minute doing
it. <i>Just get me there fast, dammit!</i>
The 105 is also limited in some ways by its relatively scant fuel capacity of
150 gallons. At a total fuel burn of 60 gph, your endurance is obviously not
very great. Two point five to dry tanks is about right (maybe a little more if
you don't pull the guts out of the engines).
On the surface, the LS model with its C-28s would seem like the perfect
marriage of engine and airframe. I've never flown an LS, but I've been told
that the higher fuel burn of the bigger engines is not as bad as you'd expect
(since they are not working as hard, I suppose), and is tolerable given the
increase in performance and resultant lower TOTs.
To this day, the Bolkow is in a class by itself (the Twinstar really does not
compete). With its humongous baggage compartment, good power and relatively
high cruise speed (120 knots), it is a tremdously capable, efficient,
inexpensive aircraft. I'm sorry to see it eclipsed by newer, supposedly better
designs.
At PHI, I flew Bolkows from 1996 to 2001, amassing 2,000 hours or so in them.
Hated every minute of it. With that rigid rotor and all the aerodynamics of a
Volkswagen Bus, it flies like a serious piece of crap. But I grew to have a
grudging respect and admiration for the tough old bird, and it's one of my
all-time favorite aircraft...just so long as I never have to actually pilot one
ever again.
Bob -glad I'm not doing <i>that</i> anymore- Barbanes
"The dignity of the craft is that it creates a fellowship."
Antoine de St. Exupery
John Noble
it, he loved that thing! It was a medic ship, based somewhere up near
Spokane, WA (met him in nearby Coeur D'Alene, ID- God's country!). He said
it was much faster, more comfy and the best part was the engine management
stuff. Throw a couple switches and watch it start itself!
He said they changed the procedure when on the ground to shut down when they
land, pretty much every time. In his words (as best as I recall), "The
turbines screaming, rotor swinging and shiny helicopter makes people around
it stupid (he said smiling!). With the minimal cool down time (said
something about Pratt telling him to just let the temp's stabilize (?) and
it's fine to shut down) and super quick relight, it is far safer and, easier
for the Flight Nurse to communicate with the Fire Dept. outside the ship".
And they look great too! John
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727084944...@mb-ba.aol.com...
JIM105
>questions about them.
>Can someone advise what engines are on this a/c? I know the LS model, of
>which they have one,
Actually, CALSTAR has 4 LS models now, 2 are ex-CHP machines ( I would imagine
they must be a little on the tired side). At least one of the CBS machines has
been upgraded from a -4 to a -5 (new blades, hydraulic pack and an allowance
for higher temps from the engines). Of course don't quote me to much on that,
I haven't flown them in over a year...and my memory is the second thing to go!
CALSTAR is also running at least 2 Bell 222's.
Jim
Mike "Rotor" Nowak
When I spent some time working at Critical Air Medicine, I was told that the
BK-117 was the "Bulkow", not the BO-105... hence, the "BK" in the 117's name
and different designation in the 105... any opinions on that issue?
Mike
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727084944...@mb-ba.aol.com...
John Noble
that is now CALSTAR 5) is operated out of Gilroy, CA (where the Garlic
Festival is now running- anyone ready for garlic ice cream???).
"CALSTAR 5" is a BO105 and based at Natividad Med Ctr in Salinas,CA. It
isn't an LS model- if I am correct in that the LS models have rectangular
exhausts.
Blue skies,
John
"JIM105" <jim...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727132152...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Al Denelsbeck
Mike "Rotor" Nowak <ro...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aSA09.28859$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Mr. Barbanes,
>
> When I spent some time working at Critical Air Medicine, I was told that
the
> BK-117 was the "Bulkow", not the BO-105... hence, the "BK" in the 117's
name
> and different designation in the 105... any opinions on that issue?
Here's my understanding, subject to correction:
Both are made by Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm (there's some umlauts in
there, but I'm likely to be wrong if I place them). But for the BK-117, MBB
teamed up with Kawasacki, hence the change in designation.
Now, If I got it all straight, MBB, Sud, and Aerospatiale are all
Eurocopter, so anything new is EC-something.
Ready for rebuttals,
- Al.
--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Bob Barbanes
story...more or less. Some of the details might not be exactly right. Hey,
sometimes our reference books just get it wrong. But it's close.
Willie Messerschmitt (yes, <i>that</i> Willie Messerschmitt) started his
company in 1923. Ludvig Bolkow formed his aircraft company in Stuttgart,
Germany in 1956. In 1963, Ludvig merged his company with Willie's. Subsequent
designs reflected Ludvig's designation of "Bo.xxx."
Messerschmitt-Bolkow got into helicopters, messing around with a couple of
designs (Bo.46, Bo.102, and Bo.103) before coming up with a commercially-viable
ship, the Bo.105. Design work on the 105 began in 1962. Notice the correct
designation. Many people refer to it incorrectly as a "BO-105" (and I'm just
anal enough to be irked by it). It made its first flight in 1967, powered by a
pair of Allison 250 C-18's (eek!). U.S. type certification was obtained in
1971. Full-scale production would not begin until 1972.
In the U.S., people just referred to it as the "Bolkow" for as far back as I
can remember.
Back up a little. In 1969, the company merged again with a company called
Hamburger Flugzeugbau. The new consortium had many partners. The German
company Blohm took 27%. Willie retained a 23% share while Ludvig got 14%.
Nord Aviation Francaise got involved for 9.6%, and Boeing was in for a like
amount. The Bavarian Reconstruction Institute got 6.5%. The resulting company
was called MBB - Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm. The minor partners' initials
evidently got left out (or it would have had to have been called MBBNBB).
Boeing marketed the Bo.105 in the U.S. initially.
The Bo.105LS got 550 h.p. Allison 250-C28's installed. The rectangular
exhausts of the C-28 are a dead giveaway.
In the mid to late 1970s, MBB was working on a growth version of the 105
called, naturally enough, the Bo.107.
Kawakaki Industries was a manufacturing company formed in 1878. By the mid
1970's, they were mainly a license-builder of Bell and Sikorsky designs when
they began working on a design of their own called the KH-7.
In a bit of serendipity that rivalled candymaker Reese's combining of peanut
butter and chocolate, Kawasaki and MBB decided to team up on a helicopter.
They would call it the BK-117. Both companies provided certain parts. Look at
the rotor hub and tailboom and you'll see its Bo.105 roots. Kawi chipped in
with their new, low-profile trans.
With the powerful LTS-101 engines (600 h.p. per side originally) and a MGW of
6,173 pounds (compared to the 105's 5512 limit), the BK must have seemed like
the answer to every 105 pilot's dream.
Okay, so if the doggy Bo.105 was a "Bolkow," then pilots who flew it might
naturally call the more muscular BK-117 a "Bull-Kaw," an obvious play on words.
I have to say that I've personally never heard of it referred as such. On the
other hand, my Bolkow pilot friends and I have spent considerable time and
energy coming up with derisive terms for our bird ("Blow-cow," etc.). But
honestly, the 117 never made a big splash in the corporate world, where I live
and work, and I don't know much about it. It just seemed such a natural in the
role of EMS.
Now, ain't that more than you ever wanted to know about the Bo.105?
Mike "Rotor" Nowak
helicopters than the 105 before the big MBB merger/Kawi team up?
By the way, I (and a few of the other guys at CA) lightly used the slur
"Whopper" for the 117... since Whoppers are from Burger King, and Burger
King abbreviated is BK ;)
Beautiful bird, I love em. Going downhill from the mountains, near VNE,
while I'm admiring the scenery from the rear windows... not much can match
that :)
Mike
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727235705...@mb-dh.aol.com...
RB
One thing they both had in common was a crack in the tailboom at the
same location.
Think the maint. manual said this was caused by sling loads but it has
been awhile so don`t quote me.
The cracks were located right hand side, a few inches below center line,
right behind where the tailboom attaches to the fuselage. These cracks
were 3 to 5 cm long.
Neither pilot or mechanic crewing these a/c were aware the cracks were
there.
Discovered the first one by accident, as had never seen a 105 up close.
While looking the 1st a/c over I noticed the crack ( I found it, so they
made me fix it ). When I seen aother 105 the company was flying at a
different base I decided to check it also. Sure enough, cracked in the
same place.
Worth a closer look see, next walk around.
Micbloo
>honestly, the 117 never made a big splash in the corporate world, where I
>live
>and work, and I don't know much about it. It just seemed such a natural in
>the
>role of EMS.
The only corporate 117 that I knew of was the two flown by Colgate-Palmolive
here in
the NY/NJ/CT/ area. And it was a very busy corporate shuttle.
THEN........
On April 15, 1997, N909CP, lifting off from
the East 60 Street Heliport in NYC when suddenly there was a loud bang and the
helicopter dropped, severing its tail boom and submerging in to the waters of
the East River. One passenger died in the crash which was blamed on "fatigue
failure of the vertical fin accelerated by the installation of blind rivets in
lieu of solid rivets in the replacement of the yaw SAS mount support".
Colgate resumed the shuttle the next year with only the one copter but soon
after that Colgate did away with their corporate helicopter for reasons unknown
but I could guess at.
And Colgate had been flying copters for a very long time.
Gerard
Helimech
that is how it is certified in the Type Certificate Data Sheet and also its
own "BO-105" Flight manual. JC
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727235705...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Helimech
with either the Pratt & Whitney PW206B or the Turbomeca Arrius 2B1. JC
"John Noble" <bizzd...@spampacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PDy09.34541$Yi5.46...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
John Noble
"Helimech" <atl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dFy19.92068$uh7.14775@sccrnsc03...
ron powell
I left that flight program in Spokane a little over a year ago, so I
think I can speak with some authority about the EC-135. They also use a
BO-105 as their backup aircraft, which scared me because I only got a total
of 18 hours in it over about 18 months - including transition. Imagine for
a moment maintaining ONLY quarterly currency in an aircraft and having to go
do dangerous stuff in it?
>I was chatting with a guy driving a new EC-135 with a pair of P&W PT6(?) in
>it, he loved that thing! It was a medic ship, based somewhere up near
>Spokane, WA (met him in nearby Coeur D'Alene, ID- God's country!). He said
>it was much faster, more comfy and the best part was the engine management
>stuff. Throw a couple switches and watch it start itself!
The MedStar ECs do have P&W engines in them. The mechanics like them
because they are easy to remove and install. One mechanic there described
the engine as, "Velcroed in." The engine does seep oil quite a bit. P&W
has a number of plastic tubing drain lines which collect the seeping oil and
vent it into the engine exhaust. If you see that pilot again, ask him how
often he washes the EC tailboom. Daily if they're doing any flying. This
opposed to the Turbomeca powered Astar B3 I fly. The engine deck remains as
dry as the desert around here in ABQ and we wash our white tailboom once a
week whether it needs or not.
As far as being any faster than the Twin Stars the ECs replaced, I would
have to argue that point. And the Twin Stars had autopilots, which those
ECs don't. Comfort, I would rate about the same when speaking of the
cockpit. My inpression of the EC in ANY turbulence, though, was one of
riding in a truck. The rotor system is way stiffer than a Astar/Twin Star.
I also attribute most of this to the external equipment such as oxygen tanks
and light bars under the sides and belly. I never flew a clean one, so I
don't really have anything to compare it with. Yes, the fuel control is a
lot easier to manage, but I would like you to consider that making things
simpler for the pilot during normal operations doesn't necessarily mean it
helps when something goes wrong. Ask the NBC news 4 guy in New York. He
apparently destoyed a perfectly good EC because he didn't understand the
FADECs and throttle positions.
The ECs had their growing pains. The tail rotor drive shaft bearings
were junk in the beginning. Eurocopter fixed them. In the beginning, one
of the MedStar ECs FODed out BOTH engines due to some sorry sheet metal
design work in the air plenum. The aircraft doesn't have a baggage
compartment, so everything you own is in the cabin with you. Eurocopter
advertises all that windshield glass, which BTW goes all the way up over the
pilot's head. You try staying cool in warm temps in that oven. And yeah,
the aircraft had a air conditioner, but it just wouldn't keep up when the
temps got above 85-90F. The MedStar ECs had a freon air conditioner system
too. Strangely, the BO had a bleed ECU which worked like a champ. You had
to turn it off for takeoff and landing in hot temps, but man it pumped out
some cool air. And there's no telling the weight difference in the systems.
>He said they changed the procedure when on the ground to shut down when
they
>land, pretty much every time. In his words (as best as I recall), "The
>turbines screaming, rotor swinging and shiny helicopter makes people around
>it stupid (he said smiling!). With the minimal cool down time (said
>something about Pratt telling him to just let the temp's stabilize (?) and
>it's fine to shut down) and super quick relight, it is far safer and,
easier
>for the Flight Nurse to communicate with the Fire Dept. outside the ship".
My recollection of this shut down procedure was that P&W didn't want any
cool down - land, shut it off. Eurocopter said 30 seconds because the
Turbomeca engines had a 30 second cool down. The Allisons on the Twin Star
required 2 minutes, so leaving it running made sense sometimes at a scene.
It doesn't with the short cool down periods you see with newer engines. We
use 30 seconds on the B3.
As that pilot pointed out, people are sometimes pretty stupid around
running machinery. Having that quick cool down period and being able to get
out a help can make a world of difference.
Just a note from trenches,
Ron
Roberto Celi
Bob Barbanes wrote:
> Ahh, history! Al Denelsbeck pretty much had it right. This is the rest of the
> story...more or less. Some of the details might not be exactly right. Hey,
> sometimes our reference books just get it wrong. But it's close.
>
> [... lots of interesting stuff snipped...]
> Now, ain't that more than you ever wanted to know about the Bo.105?
Ah, wait, wait!
Hats off to Helmut Huber and Gunther Reichert who are (sadly, were, given that
both passed away) the fathers of the Bo.105 hingeless rotor. They did it in the
late 60's-early 70's, when not a great deal was known about how to design one.
Hingeless and bearingless rotors don't usually have lag dampers, and when they do
they are not all that effective anyway. So, inplane damping for these rotors is
always a monumental headache. They got a reasonable amount of damping by
calibrating the bending and torsion stiffness of the blades, and the chordwise
c.g. position. They used to say they got lucky. Maybe it was 10% luck, but the
remaining 90% was definitely brain. Too bad they are no longer with us. They were
also very nice people and true gentlemen.
Roberto
Hank Ellis
>marriage of engine and airframe.
Except for one small problem. The C-28 is out of production. Parts lately have
been difficult to obtain. Part of the reason PHI is removing L-1's from the
fleet.
BTW, the BO-105 is out of production also. Parts for that are obtainable - at a
price. Eurocopter doesn't want to support the -105 anymore so they can sell you
a new EC135 or whatever. How to do that? Raise spare parts prices to an insane
level so it becomes uneconomical to operate the aircraft.
As a mechanic I love the -105. Built like a tank. Reasonable access to most
components. Once you know it's quirks, a fine piece of machinery. It will be a
sad day for me when the last one leaves our fleet. That won't happen soon as
there is nothing to replace it that can do it's mission profile.
Granted it's got the aerodynamics of a potato with a stick up it's butt. You
have to learn new terms such as 'Bolkow Shuffle' and 'Approach Tail Wag' to
describe certain handling problems. It's power off autorotation rate of descent
can be decribed as freefall.
But all in all, a fine workhorse of a helicopter.
Hank Ellis
Hank Ellis
The Chuting Gallery
Purveyor and Maintainer of Fine Aerodynamic Decelerators
http://chutinggallery.com
Neil Fraser
can still be delivered.
Neil
"Hank Ellis" <chutn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731114006...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Neil Fraser
some Cdn time to altitiude records as I recall . There is a 5 blade rotor
head lying around somewhere in Germany as well.
Bill W probably has details.
Neil
"Helimech" <atl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dFy19.92068$uh7.14775@sccrnsc03...
Helimech
installation. If I recall I think it was put back into the LS (C28)
configuration after the tests and was sold. JC
"Neil Fraser" <nfra...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:X9%29.111409$Yt.42...@read1.cgocable.net...
The Walkers
LS-A3 (I think). It has C28s, and needs a much higher/hotter day to hit a
TOT limit.
BW
long time LS-A3 and B1 fan
"John Noble" <bizzd...@spampacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BfA19.35879$6s1.11...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
MoogIIIc
Markk... long time fan of any helicopter that stays in the air... <chuckle>
Neil Fraser
otherwise retrofit would have been really pricy , not sure if they ever flew
C20R in CBS .
Have a copy of the SB no engine mods included.
Apparantly Allison /RR were really pissed when Ec135 only had choice of TM
or PW.
Neil
'
"MoogIIIc" <moog...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020831145939...@mb-fi.aol.com...
The Walkers
the German Army BOs. When did the engine change occur?
BW
"MoogIIIc" <moog...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020831145939...@mb-fi.aol.com...