Read the forum code of contact
By: 30th January 2011 at 16:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I wonder how it will compare costwise to the Robinson 22 and 44. ?
By: 30th January 2011 at 20:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Good question.
I'd also wonder about its operating costs as a trainer.
A lot of 47s are used for agriculture (which the R-22 and 44 aren't used for much and for sport use) where operating costs aren't quite as critical. I'd guess the operating costs would come down to parts cost and overhaul times.
And you have to remember, the Bell is roughly in between the 22 and 44 in size and capacity.
My intructor in 47s had 2000 hrs in R-22s and he thought the Bell was a better trainer, though both ships had their strong points.
And during a visit to Abbotsford, BC last year, I discovered a large helicopter training school that used the Bells.
By: 31st January 2011 at 00:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-All factory built 47s were piston.
The turbines were retrofits done by a firm named Soloy with its own STC.
They used the Allison (now Rolls) engine similar to the one in the Jet Ranger.
So unless they bought the Soloy rights or develop their own STC, I'd assume they'll be piston.
Scott's Helicopters does a lot of AG work, and turbines are in most fixed wing crop sprayers today, so I wouldn't rule it out but they haven't said one way or the other.
By: 1st February 2011 at 16:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What's the point? There is Robinson around (pistons and turbine), and also Schweitzer aka Sikorsky Light Helicopters (also pistons and turbine). And in the East there are more. It's not like the world is waiting for another light helicopter.
By: 1st February 2011 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Simply put, the Bell's a classic (and historic) airframe.
Unlike the Robinsons and the Hughes/Schweitzer/Sikorsky, the Bell is very stable and IIRC, has a higher paylod than that pair, as an example You don't see many of the others in AG use.
Having flown all three, I know which one I'd want.
To answer your question with a question...
Why rebuild Spits...a Piper can carry more at less cost as will a Mustang, Cessna Mustang that is. :D
By: 20th February 2011 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The M*A*S*H show comes to mind whenever I hear about this model. :)
By: 21st February 2011 at 09:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What's the point? There is Robinson around (pistons and turbine), and also Schweitzer aka Sikorsky Light Helicopters (also pistons and turbine). And in the East there are more. It's not like the world is waiting for another light helicopter.If you want to be like that about it what is the point of new build FW 190's and Me 262's, and Twin Otters?. Besides which, the last I heard, Viking were also planning to start build Beavers again but that was a couple of years ago and it all seems to have gone quiet on that score.
By: 22nd February 2011 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Good question.
A lot of 47s are used for agriculture (which the R-22 and 44 aren't used for much and for sport use) .
i'd think again on that one !! they are favoured by ausie cattle musterers
and boy can they throw them arround
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0lGvFheJ5Y
and this??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxe_O01SG5Q
or this ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsSvfJO9Tqc
its agriculture use is probably more than you would first think !!
By: 22nd February 2011 at 10:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-But the Aussies ar crazy anyway, it's a well known fact.
By: 25th February 2011 at 18:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-i'd think again on that one !! they are favoured by ausie cattle musterers
As they are in America. In Texas, I flew in one that was used for cattel herding. A lot of fun.
But for traditional AG spray use, not many are used for that here in the US. Of course, there are many other options here ranging from 47s and Hillers (many turbine) to surplus military OH-58s.
By: 25th February 2011 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you want to be like that about it what is the point of new build FW 190's and Me 262's, and Twin Otters?. Besides which, the last I heard, Viking were also planning to start build Beavers again but that was a couple of years ago and it all seems to have gone quiet on that score.
Exactly...the Beaver and Twin Otter are ancient designs, but they still do their jobs very well. As marketing men say, the fill a "niche".
That's why the 47 will re-enter production.
Besides, with a helicopter, if you're making spares for the power train, you've done the hard bit, might as well make the easy bits: the cabin and steel tube fuselage...:D
By: 26th February 2011 at 00:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That's my point exactly. It fills a requirement. Has there really been anything to replace it developed whilst it was out of production? I'd have to say no.
Posts: 9,821
By: J Boyle - 26th January 2011 at 18:35
I posted this in the Historic Forum but thought it would be welcome here as well.
Work is underway to resume production of the first helicopter approved for commercial use.
Last year, Bell Helicopter Textron transferred the Approved Type Certificvate for the venerable Bell 47 to Scott's Helicopter Service of Minnesota.
The firm then formed "Scott's Bell 47" to support the aircraft and in August received Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) allowing the company to make parts currently not available for the Bell 47.
Initially, the idea was to support the hundreds of Bell 47s still flying, but a couple of their press releases show that they eventually want to undertake full production.
"The PMA process will be used until the company ultimately obtains a Production Certificate." from a relase issued 2/22/2010.
and more recently,
"...Neil’s experience will be invaluable when it comes to obtaining the Production Certificate necessary for producing new Scott’s – Bell 47s! "
from a release on 1/10/2011.
http://www.scottsbell47.com/default.htm