• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

New helo trainer at Rucker?

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
Forget the “new” stuff...the Army is now auctioning off their TH-67 (206B) ships. Right now the bids for the best “looking” ones are at $16,000. Not bad for a helicopter. They each have around 9000 hours on them.

Of course you would need about another $15K to $20K to make it street legal but a good turbine helicopter for under $50K isn’t a bad deal.

22714
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
Forget the “new” stuff...the Army is now auctioning off their TH-67 (206B) ships. Right now the bids for the best “looking” ones are at $16,000. Not bad for a helicopter. They each have around 9000 hours on them.

Of course you would need about another $15K to $20K to make it street legal but a good turbine helicopter for under $50K isn’t a bad deal.

View attachment 22714
A lot of these have been going to public service. County Sheriff, etc - on this particular aircraft "Requires roof replacement with box beam repair for elongated holes through the box beam and roof. Parts may be missing. Aircraft may not be in compliance with applicable FAA requirements. "

I think the roof and box beam requires a OEM jig to replace and repair. That's serious air frame work - but could be a deal if its repaired properly. Heck if the main and T/R blades aren't timed out $15K would be a deal.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Yikes.... that reminds me of the ad in the back of car magazines for the police auction. I mean the one with the "$50 Corvette."
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
A lot of these have been going to public service. County Sheriff, etc - on this particular aircraft "Requires roof replacement with box beam repair for elongated holes through the box beam and roof. Parts may be missing. Aircraft may not be in compliance with applicable FAA requirements. "

I think the roof and box beam requires a OEM jig to replace and repair. That's serious air frame work - but could be a deal if its repaired properly. Heck if the main and T/R blades aren't timed out $15K would be a deal.
Well, now we are talking a $100K helicopter...a good deal but when you think about the $400 to $500 an hour to operate it looks less fun. 😔
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
OK @ChuckMK23...you can go to GSA Auctions and pick up a nice Cessna 210 for just a few bucks! Needs a major overhaul but...

View attachment 22715
Former DHS CBP bird!

I just helped our club acquire a 1998 Cessna 182S (normally aspirated, non turbo) - we paid $185K.

Flew down from Minnesota and its on the flight schedule today! Very much the perfect aircraft for our members. Good capability and fast enough/cheap enough to operate.

22716


Passed the pre-buy and we transferred the funds.
 
Last edited:

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
Congrats to the Team at Bell! Huge win and win for industry as a whole.

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for the Bell 407GXi. The certification is a requirement for the Navy Advanced Helicopter Training System competition, enabling the Bell 407GXi to replace the Bell TH-57 Sea Ranger as the US Navy's training helicopter.

https://www.heliopsmag.com/ifr-certification-for-the-bell-407-gxi
 

croakerfish

Well-Known Member
pilot
So what kind of redundancy does the 407 have as far as Hydraulics and electrical systems? I know it’s not as robust in that department as the 119.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
You don’t need redundant hydraulics if your aircraft is safe to fly hydraulics off.

The reason most dual-boost helos are that way is because they are usually physically impossible to fly without hydraulics.

The FAA looks at consequence versus likelihood for all system failure modes and the mitigation taken must meet their standards. One of the key things that changed from the old regs to now is that the FAA is less prescriptive about the method used to reduce the risk, and more focused on the risk as a whole.
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
So what kind of redundancy does the 407 have as far as Hydraulics and electrical systems? I know it’s not as robust in that department as the 119.
I believe certification was established with boost off vs redundant hydraulics and standby electrical is pretty straightforward. That said FAA has been a whole lot less of telling manufactures the "how" and just focus on the safe outcome of "if this fails..."

I got to tell you I am pleasantly surprised - CFIT and VFR into IMC is the real threat not stuff in the aircraft failing. Getting a certified path to IFR in an efficient single engine helo is like finding a vaccine IMHO. [Edit - didn't see @phrogdriver reply when I started replying]
 
Last edited:

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
From a "perfect world," design point of view, what makes the backup battery in the -57 not certifiable but whatever it is in the 407 that does make it certifiable? And what is that exactly? I've never completely understood what "changed" with the 407 that now makes it an option.

I understand that practically, the battery backup in the -57 isn't good, but from a design standpoint, how is it different than a battery backup in a G5 or G3X (just as an example)?

Or is the answer(s) just the change in the FARs (or certification thereof)?
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
From a "perfect world," design point of view, what makes the backup battery in the -57 not certifiable but whatever it is in the 407 that does make it certifiable? And what is that exactly? I've never completely understood what "changed" with the 407 that now makes it an option.

I understand that practically, the battery backup in the -57 isn't good, but from a design standpoint, how is it different than a battery backup in a G5 or G3X (just as an example)?

Or is the answer(s) just the change in the FARs (or certification thereof)?
The FARs changed markedly after the 57 and again last year. The 57 still wouldn't cut it under today's standards.
 
Top