Converted 212

[PerfectTrack]

who cares what they call it. if they make it and it sells, they can call it whatever they want. The history of bell has always been the obvious with naming models, almost too simplistic, but that makes it easy for the rednecks, firefighters and drillers to think like they know what they're talking about.

[flydock]

I just can't see the point in trying to re-invent the 212 and 205 they have their place, bell should have continued to support the 214 which is the best huey ever built in more ways than one if only it had not been so abused in the early days, there would be no need for any of this.

[NG Limited]

Nice looking machine.

 

Is it just me... or is there no baggage door in the tailboom? I have zoomed in on that photo but I don't see one.

[cap]

The 210 is only available to us because the US Military wanted it and signed a contract for it. If not for that, we'd have "diddley". The commercial market is getting exactly what the military wanted and that's the exact same way that the commercial market got their hands on the first UH-1D/E's back at "square one". Without that signed military contract we'd all just be looking at schematics and drawings.......and wishing........"Geez, if only....

 

 

Blackmac ------Your basically right. The "conversion" has everything the 210 has EXCEPT it doesn't have a total new wiring replacement and the A/F isn't "0-timed". It is known as the Bell 205 -17B or -17++. Bell did the other two steps and called it the Bell 210. So far the US Army has designated it a UH-1H which is the civilian 205, but they'll come-up with some more fancy letters for Pentagon use probably.

 

Folks got to remember that the US military got scads of 1H's sitting around Bases all over the place and many are not high-timers. The "service reliability rate" for the UH-1N's during the first Gulf War out-stripped all the rest of the US Army R/W onsite and that model first saw the light of day in 1967. Just 2 hours south of me at Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota, they got almost 1500 sitting there in their "shrink-wrap". The US Army has beat their heads against the wall for years trying to find an exact replacement for the 'ol single-engine Hueys and never found one. Even the 214 is Bell's result of the the Army's "creative hot-rodding" in Vietnam in order to find another machine to sling-out damaged Hueys and get them back to a Base for repair. Getting a Chinook or S-64 to do that was like trying to get a cab in New York City at quittin' time on Friday, so a Cobra engine "accidentally on purpose" found it's way into a UH-1H A/F .

[vortex]

I just can't see the point in trying to re-invent the 212 and 205 they have their place, bell should have continued to support the 214 which is the best huey ever built in more ways than one if only it had not been so abused in the early days, there would be no need for any of this.

Flydock, making sense like that will get you nowhere. We use B2's and 407's at 75% of their usefull load all day long for safety, then go and swing a drill at 98% of the 205/212's capacity. Use a 214 and the pilots life should get that much nicer. Actually...the customer will just load the 214 to 98% of its capacity. Forget my statement.

BHT may have kept supporting the 214 but the engine is a bit of an issue. The T55O8D is only used in the 214B, so Bell built 70 of them, operators crashed about 35 of them...so Honeywell probly doesn't care too much about 35, 30 year old aircraft, that are still abused today.

[cap]

Vortex -------we'd have a lot more of the "beasties" around if we could ever get the hundreds out of Iran that the Shah was given and remain there to this day. :down:

[Mike Reyno]

Black Mac,

 

The Single 212 is being certified as the 'Eagle Single', not 212, not 212S and not 212 Single, Eagle Single.

 

You are right, this is a major modification, but how is this different than an

AS 350SD2, 350FX or 355FX that have all be certified (relatively quickly) through an STC?

 

It is not a matter of 'if' they get certification, but 'when' they get certification, which should be this summer if all goes as planned. Look at the Honeywell-powered 350FX that Heli-Lynx is offering....they received Transport Canada certification before most people even read about it in the latest issue of Vertical.

 

I hear operators are lining up to get their hands on the Single, which will be a real stump puller! :punk: There are three going through the conversion process right now at Eagle.

 

 

Cap....

 

The US military never did sign a contract for the 210 (which is based on the UH-1 - not 205), and to date none have been delivered to an operator, although the first one is due for delivery this spring. Bell was originally offering the 210 for the US Army's Light Utility Helicopter program (which is underway now), but they changed their offering last year to the B412 in order to meet the minimum requirements.

 

Fly doc...the only reason why people keep trying to re-invent the 205/212 is becasue they are the only affordable helicopters in this class. Not many operators can get the rates to justify a new medium type like an AW139, or 210 for the matter. You can pick up a good 205 in the $2.5 million range, which is getting close to the same price as a 212. Why? Because they are in hot demand, but, the 205 pool is drying up, which is why we see Eagle converting the 212 to the Single, which is 'almost' like a 205A++ on steroids since it will lift 1,000lbs more. :up:

 

Mike

[Over-Talk]

Yes, there is no baggage compartment.....

"There are structural changes such as the removal of

the baggage compartment,"

quoted from the brochure, (a large and colourful PDF file)

it's available at

http://www.eaglecopters.com/mainframe.htm

then click the Introducing the NEW Eagle 'S' headline.

[Skids Up]

Well, there is a step in the wrong direction....

 

Someone went brain dead.

[Blackmac]

Mike: Thanks for the info, I'm glad I'm not going of the deep end.

 

As for the other conversion you are talking about, I think they would be classified as up-grades to an original design.

 

"You are right, this is a major modification, but how is this different than an

AS 350SD2, 350FX or 355FX that have all be certified (relatively quickly) through an STC?"

 

Cheers,Don