Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The 214 is an extremely reliable well built Heavy lift Helicopter if it is kept within the factory specs


Problems will arise quickly when you start to treat it like any other Bell medium

left in the hands of a cowboy who knows better it can rip itself to pieces


fuel starvation was not always the problem rocky mountain had several engine failures related to the following

Accessory gearbox drive failures

GP disc failures

GP Disc retaing bolt failures

GP nozzle failures

These problems have been corrected or addressed over time by honeywell and are an engine problem not an airframe problem


Great Features the 214 Has


The Nodamatic suspension when the nodals are tuned one of the smoothest bells ever

The SCAS Stabilty Control Augmentation System makes it extremely stable

Composite blades built 25 years Before carson ever dreamed of it

exteme hot and high performance

Ballistic self sealing fuel system

extemely good flight charecterisitcs during emergencies, Auto's, Hovering Auto's, TR failures

12 pax, + ski's,full fuel max internal gross basically and you get off the ground with 75% power

It is bar none the best sounding helicopter ever built Everybodys bucket list should include getting a low pass @ 140 knots by a Bell 214B


To bad it didn't get more attention from the right people it would have been more succesful





Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In regard to engine failures..for you 2 engine dude's...keep in mind...that most of , if not all the engine failures in the 214 are from fuel starvation, which in no way should be confused with mechan

Posted Images

The only thing that a 214 operator had to do to have a bad accident record was to operate the machine. It is a fabulous helicopter, but it only has one engine. The accident record for the 214 in logging is horrendous - it was simply not the right application for the machine, and never forget that Bell marketed this as a logging machine. They crashed in Canada, just as well as the US.


The same stands true for the K-Max. These are small fleets, with extremely high attrition rates in this application. The UH-1, 205 and 204 didn't do very well in this application either.


They are good helicopters, but working in an unforgiving and challenging environment - lose a motor and it won't be good.



N1 seems to be the expert!!! But I am still thinking that this post is a joke... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
In regard to engine failures..for you 2 engine dude's...keep in mind...that most of , if not all the engine failures in the 214 are from fuel starvation,


There has been only 3 documented fuel starvation incidents in the 214B fleet. These incidents were not considered "engine failures" but were pilot or maintenance errors or a combination of both.


2 of the fuel starvation incidents were posted earlier in the thread, the 3rd happened to the 'original Transwest' in approx 1980 when they were moving a tank at the Pitt Meadows airport and ran out of fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

There has been a S-64 skycrane crash every year for eight years now . We should talk about that safety record .

The crash this summer with the 214 would be far more serious in any other single engine helicopter considering the circumstances. I believe in the 214 .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...