Jump to content

Bell 210


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The 210 hull starts/started from a UH-1 hull from the same pool of mothballed hulls used for the UH-1Y program. The hulls go/went back onto the jigs to be zero-timed and "civilianized".

 

As for the comment on the UH-1Y having potential as a civvy ship; well, look at the UH-1Y and it pretty much looks like a 412... :mellow:

 

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the airframes they used for the UH-1Y were supposed to be their UH-1N airframes they were still using but it ended up being too expensive and so halfway through the program they started manufacturing new airframes. The Canadian griffon looks and basically is a 412 but the UH-1Y is quite different. They are calling it the 'Venom'. It has T700-GE-401C engines and supposedly has a usefull load of 6,661 lb. Different blades, rotor head, transmision and engines then a 412.

 

pics and information:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/...PG_3-06_web.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Company I work for was going to buy one of these 210's from Bell. We kept getting the run around from Bell as far as a delivery date was concerned we were told November last year then January then February then April and then it was well we'll let you know,and they wouldn't even take our money for a down payment. The biggest problem with the 210 is that Bell is using old millatary airframes so as far as the FAA and Transport Canada are concerned they are classified as restricted. Another problem is that you have to deal with Bell in the states and they aren't very good with customer realtions with Canadian operators. Bell is still trying to get TC approval and they may not even get it is what I've heard. We've given up trying to get a 210 in favor of an Eagle Single. Very nice machine that is actually capable of getting things done.Eagle has given us a delivery date of late February or early March they've stuck by this since day one. We're supposed to get number 3 or 4 off the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a medium pilot, so know very little about the 210, but I do know that one of the companies down here in the Seattle area sent two of their Hueys to Bell to be converted to 210s before the program fell apart. As far as I know, their two Hueys were two of only three to be sent to Bell and they are still sitting there in Texas with no news as to if or when they will be completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, nothing is simple like it should be. Military airframes are 'Restricted' for a variety of reasons and being 'military' or somehow 'unsafe' are words that indicates that military pilots somehow have a death wish or are stupid. Nothing could be farther from the truth and when going into combat youi want that 'ride' to be safe and functioning properly because it may well have to take some kind of 'pounding' that is 'above and beyond'. As stated, there are other reasons.

 

Military 'Hueys' of the Vietnam era did NOT have tailboom baggage compartments. That's a major cost to install for whoever. Some, but not all, had the tail-rotor on the opposite side from civilian models. Again, the cost of changing sides is astronomical and that states nothing about "Approvals' from guess who.

There is also a difference in skin thickness of the fuselage and that difference is .060, but it is nonetheless a difference. So are ex-military 'Huey Models' somehow less safe than their civilian counterparts? No they are not, but they were produced at Bell for the US Military without the FAA having any say or control over their production because the FAA have absolutely no powers within the halls of the military. The day might well come though when you wish to sell your access military a/c into the civilian world and that then falls under the powers of the FAA........and then the FAA will exort their 'pound of flesh' for ignoring them. The "Huey Tug' was an invention of military mechanics in Vietnam and was basically a Huey with a Cobra engine in it because they couldn't get access to a "Crane' for slinging out downed Hueys for repair when they needed them. There weren't many made, but they proved very usaeful. Along comes Bell and decides that this will work on the civilian side. FAA advises "No way because that was developed without any controls from us. If you want to produce something along those lines then 'back to the drawing-boards' and it'll be under OUR control this time. Ergo, the Bell 214B was born because it 'mirrors' the 'Huey Tug' of long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, nothing is simple like it should be. Military airframes are 'Restricted' for a variety of reasons

There is also a difference in skin thickness of the fuselage and that difference is .060, but it is nonetheless a difference. So are ex-military 'Huey Models' somehow less safe than their civilian counterparts? If you want to produce something along those lines then 'back to the drawing-boards' and it'll be under OUR control this time. Ergo, the Bell 214B was born because it 'mirrors' the 'Huey Tug' of long ago.

 

It was explained to me, when looking at the Grunman Trackers that have been hoarded by Conair for Fire Trackers. military ships may have 'recommended lives' on their tracked components, but those same components may be run on an O/C-no time life basis as the need requires. Because of the dubiousness of a components history, that made for the stipulation that any military machine being switched over to civilian registration requires that all tracked/life'd components to be scrapped (not overhauled) and replaced with new/overhauled civilian ones.

 

Sheetmetal followed much of the same 'special to military' guidelines-that repairs done under military tolerances are not civilian, so all skins that have previous repairs must be made to 'new' again: not just replaced with appropriate civilian repairs, but replaced completely so that no previous damage exists. Not to mention the shielding and military electronics that gets removed, tank modifications (if installed)....just the weight and balance changes to the airframe itself sounded like it got a Transport Inspector unto itself.

 

Since then I have always assumed the same would apply for fling-wing applications. The 214 has huge amount of ballast in the nose (much like a 212 without float bottles) and I've been told that if the company would run with the original military armoured seats, the weight and balance would be down to a more normal aircraft.

 

I don't know if I what I was told at that time was mis-interpreted as I was being told, for now I have back-around knowledge from work experience and course training that I didn't have at that time. But it did make sense to me, that in order to make Military to civilian conversion, it would have to be along the same line as the 'quantity ensure quality and price" and have to take a company with deep pockets and a big spares department.

 

I would love to see the 214 go back into production, but I was under the impression that the type certificate was held by a company in Iran, so they have built themselves hundreds of 214B's and all Bell can do is maintain the civilian fleet that is still flying over here. And since none of those Iranian 214's are built by Bell, then Bell won't recognize or support them flying in North America. I just put that together myself, as I found that Bell only begrudgingly recognizes that they made the 214 at all because they HAVE TO, not because they want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Aggroeitch
The Company I work for was going to buy one of these 210's from Bell. We kept getting the run around from Bell as far as a delivery date was concerned we were told November last year then January then February then April and then it was well we'll let you know,and they wouldn't even take our money for a down payment. The biggest problem with the 210 is that Bell is using old millatary airframes so as far as the FAA and Transport Canada are concerned they are classified as restricted. Another problem is that you have to deal with Bell in the states and they aren't very good with customer realtions with Canadian operators. Bell is still trying to get TC approval and they may not even get it is what I've heard.

YTS Jockey, thank you for your answer. You and Arctic Front are the only ones that have tried to answer to my original question. Hope you get the Eagle on time, it sure looks nice :) .

 

If Bell is still struggling with Faa certification, i'd assume it will not be any time soon for them to get 210 certified by Easa. If ever.

 

Again thanks for posting.

 

Aggroeitch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggroeitch -----the Bell 210 and everything about it were aimed at securing a US Army contract to replace their present stock of 'moth-balled' Hueys. At one American Air Base near my location there are over 2,400 Hueys and none with A/F times exceeding 3000 hrs. That is but one location in the US and they are all secured for further use in 'skrinkwrap' and protected in other ways.

 

The US military decided against the Bell 210 version and without that military contract the 210 was doomed. That also applies to a wide variety of other R/W types that would not exist today in the civilian world if it weren't for a military contract because those contracts are huge. The US Army lost over 4000 in Vietnam and still kept buying. It's often been stated that the Vietnam War 'saved' Bell financially in more ways then one and made them what they are today. We are but the benefactors of some long ago or present-day conflict/war some place in the world on both the F/W and R/W sides. I wouldn't 'hold my breath' waiting for a 210 delivery to anyone, anywhere and will probably die a natural death in years to come.

 

ValKiran,mtc ------- you have understood just about 100% correctly. What you have understood though is that ALL aircraft SHALL be constructed and maintained under the FAA's 100% infallible system and guidelines or else at some point they will make you pay for that insult. The military could have a system in place that far exceeds that of the FAA, but unless the FAA can be the 'Boss' and make EVERY aarm of the US military comply with their guidance and rules, then they will gladly tell all that will listen that the 'other' system is wrong and unsafe. The rules stay in place like that until there is a huge need on the civilian market that must be addressed AND THEN the rules change because of political pressures. We have fought fires in Canada with all manner of WW2 a/c which were all 100% military including the RCN's Trackers and even American-made B-24 bombers. Perhaps the MoT could explain how it is that over 13 of Canadian Registered 204's/05's are of military background and were only considered "Civilian' because they flew for a 'supposedly' large airline in the Far East of Vietnam War days. They came into their possession because their first acquistion was made possible by the USMC being ordered to give them to their new owners. Some of those a/c are flying in Canada now as you read this and have for eons.......ALL known about by our 'friends' in Ottawa and Bell Helicopter Textron. All are easily identified by 'miking' the forward bulkhead by the pedals and a difference in thickness of .060 with their civilian cousins will be duly noted.

 

Bell 214's never existed on the US Army payroll and were directed at the civilian market. Their production numbers reached over 400 only because the first 400 were to be given to Iran in the last days of the Shah, under a contract by the US government with Bell to satisfy that diplomatic agreement. Together with that contract was a stipulation that Bell Helicoter Textron International would supply American ex-military instructors to do the teaching. Before that could be completed the Shah was over-thrown, Iran kept the 214's without further payment to Bell and Bell stopped producing them. They didn't produce anymore because again, the industry at that time did not want and could not absorb an a/c of it's type and cost. Some companies did in fact acquire the type, but it was beyond reach and not viable for many others.

 

If Bell was going to stop production of the 214 because Iran or someone else was producing them, then they should have stopped producing the 205 and the 212. There are at present over 1,500 MORE 205's in the world than Bell Helicopter or Augusta Bell in Italy EVER produced and a large amount of SINGLE hydraulic 212's exist as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggroeitch -----the Bell 210 and everything about it were aimed at securing a US Army contract to replace their present stock of 'moth-balled' Hueys. At one American Air Base near my location there are over 2,400 Hueys and none with A/F times exceeding 3000 hrs. That is but one location in the US and they are all secured for further use in 'skrinkwrap' and protected in other ways.

 

Perhaps the MoT could explain how it is that over 13 of Canadian Registered 204's/05's are of military background and were only considered "Civilian' because they flew for a 'supposedly' large airline in the Far East of Vietnam War days. They came into their possession because their first acquistion was made possible by the USMC being ordered to give them to their new owners. Some of those a/c are flying in Canada now as you read this and have for eons.......ALL known about by our 'friends' in Ottawa and Bell Helicopter Textron. All are easily identified by 'miking' the forward bulkhead by the pedals and a difference in thickness of .060 with their civilian cousins will be duly noted.

 

If Bell was going to stop production of the 214 because Iran or someone else was producing them, then they should have stopped producing the 205 and the 212. There are at present over 1,500 MORE 205's in the world than Bell Helicopter or Augusta Bell in Italy EVER produced and a large amount of SINGLE hydraulic 212's exist as well.

 

Great reading in this thread, all of it. Cap, miking of the foreward bulkhead by the pedals? Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I know what this means.

Also "There are at present over 1,500 MORE 205's in the world than Bell Helicopter or Augusta Bell in Italy EVER produced and a large amount of SINGLE hydraulic 212's exist as well." Is this to say that these 'extra' 205's were built from the ground up? Or they were converted from UH-1's into 205's (from something like a stockpiling of above mentioned mothballes shrinkwrapped Hueys)?

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...