Jump to content

Discovery Channel Fairytale

Guest BeeBee

Recommended Posts

TS ------ I believe I can ehlp you out on that comparison you speak of and I'll just mention the first "A" Model and leave you to compare.


The first A Model I stepped into was in the winter of '67-'68. It came with a C-18 of course and had an EW of 1485 lbs. It sat on low skid gear with fairings. That was before long range fuel extenders , but I could fill up the tanks to max, load 4 average-sized pax onboard, clear a 50' object and once at cruise at 80% Q, I would see 130-135MPH indicated. I operated with a Bendix FCU and that was before anything called CECO, except on the Mediums of the day. I had to use something called PRIST in the cold weather because nothing cam with anti-icing inhibitors already in it. So fuel yourself up, grab the can of PRIST and give her 2-3 sprays into the fuel tank and away ya go. Didn't hover too long in the snaow either because all you had was reverse scoops on the intakes at best. I had a Janitrol Heater and the less said about that, the better. I could lift 2-45gal drums of JP-4 on the hook with 25 gals indicated and i burnt approximately 25GPH.


When and if i operated at altittude in the 'rock pile', I had alcohol fuel injection at my finger tips on the top part of the collective. That helped much when I gave it a quick burst, but I still couldn't beat or match what a Supercharged Bell 47 #B1 or 2 could do on the hook. I could outrace it, but not compete with it at altitude of any amount. The same could be said against another nemisis of the time....the damned SL-4.


The difference between the 206 then and now? EMPTY WEIGHT! Each 10% of Q will lift approximately 300lbs of weight. Do the math with an EW of 1485lbs. Yeah, I know exactly what you are thinking. I also knew that using those figures at lower altitudes, I was already over-gross if I was seeing 100% Q and was hardly moving. I also knew that I was 300 + lbs over-gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

did the A model's come with two different dashes? Becuase I've heard people refer to some jetrangers as A's that have that instrument cluster and the lower dash but then there is also an even older style dash that I've seen that is tiny even smaller than the normal cluster ones were they jetranger I's or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian used to have 206 with a narrow pedistal type instrument panel. I beleave it was built by agusta ????? Matt from arrow heli used to fly it in fsj


Hey Freddie,


we have that machine at great slave's school in springbank.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the TV show....so for all concerned, bear with me.


An EC-120 is a stop-gap between the 206 and a R-44. That is in it's current form. A budget helicopter with very modern potential. Give it a year or two, the EC-120 may grow into its own technology. I'll accept the opinion of those that support this new machine as a work in progress. As we have seen over the years, the Jetbox has grown into its place. But in all honesty, no matter how poor the A-model 206 was, it was light-years ahead of anything close in it's day. Yes, it was under-powered with a C-18..... but THEN! As will be seen in future years, the 120 will grow into it's own. The 206 has definitely earned its spurs over 3 or more decades. The EC-120 has all the potential of that.


I'm sure the 120 has the potential to inherit the bigger engines available. I do, however wonder WHY Eurocopter didn't introduce this machine with at least enough power to blow the Jetranger out of the water in the first place? If they had, Eurocopter would have put the Jetranger 'tp bed' once and for all.


I see the current comparison as not a 206 vs. 120 so much as a lost opportunity in pure marketing. For Eurocopter not to drive the final spike into the heart of Bell in the light market when they had the opportunity is a fools gambit. There was never a more vulnerable market-segment than the one held, iron-clad, than the one held by the B-206 Jetranger. This was a segment for Bell to lose, not for Eurocopter to gain. They dropped the ball, pure and simple. With all Eurocopter has to gain, an old and tired fleet needing to be replaced, they didn't grasp the initiative when they could have. Therefore, the debate will linger on.... EC-120 VS.

Jetranger. Kinda sad really. Bell hasn't offered anything 'new' at all in 30 yrs. What a waste for Eurocopter not to capitalize on this.


For the record, I'm a 110% 'BELL' guy. But you can't hide the truth. Eurocopter missed a serious opportunity to stick it to Bell. There is nothing even close to 'modern' helicopter available from Bell in the light helicopter market that isn't a re-hash of a 206. No new ideas, no innovation.


As much as it pains me to say it, Eurocopter has earned the right to be top-dog

Link to comment
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...