Bell 206b

[ray]

Fuel filters are non-cleanable. Throw them away at 300 hours.

It's done by the AME because the fuel system will have to be purged of air.

 

If you continue flying around with a fuel filter in bypass, and the checks show the fuel system was contaminated, you will have to overhaul all the components in the fuel system, including the FCU.

Change the filter at the earliest opportunity.

 

I believe the additional filter does away with anti-icing because it's thought that the additional level of filtration will prevent any ice from entering the fuel pump, and if the filter starts to clog, you will get an indication before it starts plugging the engine filter.

[cap]

Albert Ross -------personally I don't give a **** why the A/F fuel filter changes things about adding "anti-ice additive". Reason being that I'm more than happy to not have to grab the bloody can of PRIST and go "squirt, squit squit" into the G.D tank every time I fuelled up. I also remember being dumb enough to not make sure I had a gall darn supply of it onboard and then the air got real "blue" around the a/c at -20F........glad to see the last of the **** stuff. :down:

 

Ray -----anyone that has an engine-driven fuel pump go into "by-pass" and flies around all over the place with it like that needs to have their brain "purged" before they start any purging of the a/c fuel system.

 

Maggie ------ I agree entirely......and now here comes the "But". In reality, many times the fuel is added the next morning once I'm advised of who, where and what I'm taking on take-off. Once I've done that fuelling, then I've negated almost entirely what you and I just agreed upon. Ergo, I am very particular about fuel storage, damaged and/or staved-in, teflon-lined drums, etc., etc.

 

It's also been my experience that the amount of water that a jet engine will tolerate is in direct proportion to the number of igniters that that engine has in place. So if I have 3 igniters and you have one, we both better pay good attention to the state of our fuel coming onboard, but you best be a tad more leery and me.

[Nick]

What about flying with the light on ? Normally the "A/F fuel filter" will come first.

 

As the light tells you that the fuel filter is about to be bypassed (from data product) or that the fuel filter is clogged(from FM), how long can you flight (2mn to the next landing spot, 1h to your base...etc) ? Is it part of each company procedures manuel ?

 

On SA313, the procedure is : reduce power, the light will be off, continue the flight. Reduce power to keep the light off.

Can you do the same on Bell 206 or when the light is on, it's on untill an AME check the filter ?

 

That's all for today

[cap]

Nick ----- the warning light indicates that you have a problem and therefore you pay attention to that and "land as soon as practical". If it wasn't supposed to be paid attention to, they wouldn't have put the darn thing there in the first place........so get thee *** to an engineer as soon as you can.

[cap]

Nick ----- the warning light indicates that you have a problem and therefore you pay attention to that and "land as soon as practical". If it wasn't supposed to be paid attention to, they wouldn't have put the darn thing there in the first place........so get thee *** to an engineer as soon as you can. If not, then at least take the time to compile a possible answer for the courtroon lawyer acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, when he asks you, "If you had a warning light in the cockpit, why were you still airborne 1.5hrs later?

[Blackmac]

Water Contamination: Hughes 500D:

 

On approach to a pad (in the Bush) at about 300 ft and 60 mph the engine went silent, proceeded to autorotate and in the flair at about 20 ft over the pad the engine re-ignited, landed with power.

 

Proceeded to open clamshell doors and check as to what the **** was going on. This was not a Viking machine. I was aware that the engine driven fuel pump did not have a drain, carefully took the cover off the filter and found water 1/2 ounce in the lowest portion of the cover.

Hughes had never put a drain there, only "Viking".

Drained the water, did a hover check flight and returned the machine to the owner and told him I would not fly it again until it had a drain ****.

 

I believe about an ounce of water will put out the fire on a C20.

 

Hughes was smart enough to put in auto-relight system that should be mandatory on all single engine helicopters.

 

Cheers Don

[Randster]

It's a real simple answer:

 

Using take-off power above 80 knots results in putting a bending moment on the mast. What's a bending moment? Think of it like this: you're pushing the cyclic forward to make the aircraft go faster and as a result, the nose of the helicopter goes lower and lower, ya, ya? At the same time, the horizontal stabilizer is trying to counteract that effect and pull the tail down (around 300 lbs. of down force at 100 kts.). Guess where all the stress goes? That's right.... the mast. Yeah, you can pull take-off power and go really fast, but to do that makes the mast actually go out-of-round and the chances of it making TBO ... real slim. I prefer not to hear plop, plop, plop when the maintenance guys roll the mast across the table.

 

Most pilots I know cruise the Jetranger between 70 to 80 percent torque. One pilot Cap and I know used to use 85 to 90 percent torque. Seems he always used up a Jetranger faster than anyone else. Really makes you want to take over a machine from him after he's been flying it. I've tried 85 on a cross country and see a 2-3 knot increase in airspeed but a significant increase in fuel burn. The trade-off just isn't there. Don't forget, the Jetranger was engineered in the 60's.

 

Your choice!

 

Remember the sage words of Sharkbait... "You get paid by the hour!"

 

All the really good pilots I've seen over the years never abuse the aircraft. They don't fly a generic helicopter or put more simply; they don't make whatever helicopter they're flying, fly to their skill level. They respect each helicopter (limitations). They know each aircraft they fly and fly it the way the manufacturer intended to to fly... Do that and you'll have a real competitive advantage over some of the other yahoos out there.

[cap]

Randster -------please do not drag me into conversations about "war emergency power".......or at least that's the term I've heard used for that and also pulling 60 Q on a 205.

[Phil Croucher]

Randster - there is another reason for the speed limitation between 85-100% Tq.

 

Main rotor blades twist constantly as they advance and retreat. Because the speed of the rotors is different from root to tip, and the blade going forward has a higher relative airspeed than the one going backward, the fight for each blade to produce the same amount of lift as the other means that their angles of attack must constantly change. This makes the Centre of Pressure move back and forth along the chord line, creating a twisting moment whenever it moves to the front or rear of the pitch change axis.

 

Blade forces should ideally act through the pitch change axis along its whole length. If the C of P is allowed to move too far forward or back, the pitch angle could vary as the angle of attack varies, in extreme cases making the machine uncontrollable. In turbulent conditions, a C of P that is too far forward could cause the collective to increase by itself.

 

I hear what you say about Mast Bending, and indeed that was what I was told by an instructor over here, but I was also told the above.

 

Phil