Jump to content


UpperLimit2011General_468x60VOLO_VRGeneral468Helicopter AcademyTigerTugsVRForumGen468
Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

OH-58 comment.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 summit850

summit850

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:02

I would like to ear some comments about The OH-58 civilian version. There is not many and comments are hard to find.

 

I own a 44 raven 2 and I'm already signed on a BH206B3 and have few hours.

 

I may have an opportunity on a OH-58.

 

I know it will not outperform my 44, but I Iike the stability of the 206 and it will keep his value.

 

But I don't know about the overall performance of the OH-58.

 

 

 


  • inetryconydot likes this

#2 mudkow60

mudkow60

    ATP Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 13 April 2017 - 16:16

Not outperform your Robbie?  Um...



#3 helonorth

helonorth

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 13 April 2017 - 16:53

There is no civilian version of the OH-58. You conform it so you can operate in the restricted category. Unless you plan on spraying with it, it's pretty much useless. 

 

https://www.law.corn.../text/14/91.313



#4 adam32

adam32

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Company working for:Just keeping the bills paid!!

Posted 13 April 2017 - 19:34

Not outperform an R44? What type of souped up R44 you putting around in?

Make your rifle, your targets worst nightmare!

 

www.diablocustomrifles.com


#5 SBuzzkill

SBuzzkill

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 15 April 2017 - 22:05

Just google "OH-58A/C operators manual" and check out Chapter 7.  All the performance information is in there.



#6 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 16 April 2017 - 11:02

There is no civilian version of the OH-58. You conform it so you can operate in the restricted category. Unless you plan on spraying with it, it's pretty much useless. 

 

 

 

lets review history here, was it the oh or the egg


Edited by pokey, 16 April 2017 - 11:03.


#7 helonorth

helonorth

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 16 April 2017 - 14:45

I wa assuming the OP was probably aware of the Jetranger. Never a good idea.

I think the OP thinks there is an 0H-58 (not a 206) that is in the standard category (a civilian version). 


Edited by helonorth, 16 April 2017 - 15:12.


#8 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:48

I wa assuming the OP was probably aware of the Jetranger. Never a good idea.

I think the OP thinks there is an 0H-58 (not a 206) that is in the standard category (a civilian version). 

 

yes, never assume. Everytime i do? i wind up in the doghouse. All that aside tho, i do find it kinda interesting how the US helicopter manufacturers have a civil AND a military version of pretty much the same helicopter-but the parts are not interchangeable. (well, they are the same part, they fit, do the same job, just not legally) I've "civilianized" a few th-55's, but? when the military bought them from Hughes, they wanted an "off the shelf, certificated ship". Ever wonder why they didn't do the same with the 206?



#9 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 17 April 2017 - 10:39

speaking of ball bearings.  (and certificated parts/aircraft) Especially wheel bearings for light airplanes. Do you actually believe there is some guy on the ball bearing line that tests every bearing & then decides if it is 'aircraft quality'?  I mean, come on! the wheel bearing in your car sees much more abuse and lasts much longer than the one in your cessna 172, but? they are "higher quality" (and price). Some things are just not to be questioned, i guess?

 

Back to the th-55 now. The TT-strap in the tail rotor is substantially life limit reduced when you "civilianize" it. Why? well glad you asked. Only reason i can see it that the military has increased the pitch that the pilot can put into the tail rotor, hence stressing it more than was allowed in the original design. So? if your strap has seen any "military time", need to replace it with new and re-set your stops.

 

OK, i'm done. Dog house duty calls.



#10 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:41

 Do you actually believe there is some guy on the ball bearing line (and price). Some things are just not to be questioned, i guess?

 

.

 

come on guys?! its all ball bearings these days. Do some things just 'bug' ya?



#11 adam32

adam32

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Company working for:Just keeping the bills paid!!

Posted 17 April 2017 - 15:01

How about the air filter on an R22? What are they now nearly $100 for one? Anyone ever cross reference one? They are out of a 1990's Ford Aerostar van...guess which ones I was buying?

Tail rotor driveshaft bearings on a Bell 212...yup, the box has a Bell sticker and part number OVER the Timken sticker and part number...maybe the guy on the line has an assortment of helicopter manufacturer stickers in his pocket and whenever he sees a "good" bearing he slaps a different sticker on...
  • TomPPL likes this

Make your rifle, your targets worst nightmare!

 

www.diablocustomrifles.com


#12 Eric Hunt

Eric Hunt

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near the beach

Posted 17 April 2017 - 23:39

Same with the landing light on the R22, over a hundred bux from the supplier, same light, same part number $28 at the auto shop.


  • TomPPL likes this

#13 SBuzzkill

SBuzzkill

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 18 April 2017 - 07:28

 

yes, never assume. Everytime i do? i wind up in the doghouse. All that aside tho, i do find it kinda interesting how the US helicopter manufacturers have a civil AND a military version of pretty much the same helicopter-but the parts are not interchangeable. (well, they are the same part, they fit, do the same job, just not legally) I've "civilianized" a few th-55's, but? when the military bought them from Hughes, they wanted an "off the shelf, certificated ship". Ever wonder why they didn't do the same with the 206?

 

 

That's exactly what they did with the TH-67.



#14 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:45

 

 

That's exactly what they did with the TH-67.

 

OH, so the th-67 parts are interchangeable?  I have never seen a 67 in civilian use. Who is using them?  If you are referring to the competition from the 90's?  yes. then a few civilanized ships did come out of that. And? well, bell was the only choice.

 

i as under the assumption that we were talking early history, my mistake


Edited by pokey, 18 April 2017 - 10:48.


#15 SBuzzkill

SBuzzkill

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 18 April 2017 - 22:04

The TH-67 is the military designation for the 206B III, so lots of people are using them.  I know it's not the aircraft the OP is talking about but I was just pointing out that the Army did indeed get another commercial off the shelf aircraft to replace the TH-55.


Edited by SBuzzkill, 18 April 2017 - 23:32.


#16 pokey

pokey

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Location:maine YAY !
  • Interests:just about anything interesting
  • Company working for:my own

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:02

The TH-67 is the military designation for the 206B III, so lots of people are using them.  I know it's not the aircraft the OP is talking about but I was just pointing out that the Army did indeed get another commercial off the shelf aircraft to replace the TH-55.

 

I have never seen a th67 for sale. How does/did the military go about releasing them from service? the th55's had to be sold off to gov't agencies (sheriff, police,, etc) and had to remain in their department for a certain time period (2 years if i remember correctly)



#17 SBuzzkill

SBuzzkill

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:21

I don't know if they have sold any yet since they are using them still at Fort Rucker, but it is my understanding that they can be sold for commercial purposes. 

 

Here's an older article about them and the OH-58 divestment:

 

https://www.flightgl...58-th-6-414435/

 

 

Transfer of the TH-67s, based on the Bell 206B-3 JetRanger, is expected to be fairly easy since the aircraft are FAA-certified and available to the civil aviation community.

Moving the OH-58 presents more of a challenge, since the aircraft are not civil-certified and can only be used domestically by government agencies for non-commercial purposes.


Edited by SBuzzkill, 19 April 2017 - 07:21.


#18 helonorth

helonorth

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:54

A bit dated, but according to this, there will be no sales to the public.

 

"While the TH-67, the military version of the popular Bell 206B-3 JetRanger, has commercial flight applications, the spokesman said, “The disposal/reutilization screening process indicates TH-67s will be reutilized by Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Justice (DOJ) activities, law enforcement agencies and military training facilities such as the Naval Test Pilot School.” The Navy currently uses its own version of the 206, the TH-57, as a primary trainer."

 

http://www.ainonline...ng-civvy-street


  • SBuzzkill likes this

#19 Dnr032

Dnr032

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Road cycling

Posted 20 April 2017 - 19:42

The TH-67 is being released through the 1033 military surplus program to qualified Federal, State and Local law enforcement government agencies, just like the OH-58 and the UH-1 was released. I know of several agencies who have traveled to Rucker, signed for the aircraft and flown it home. It is a fully FAA certified B-206.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



MidwestHeliAcademy2016DevoreGeneral200MaunaLoaSoftwareVRGeneral200Able_VRGeneral200Genesys VRForum200_GeneralColoradoHeliOpsGeneral200HeliHelmetsNFCVRGeneral200Helmet FX General 200PrecisionVRForumGeneral200