summit850 Posted April 12, 2017 Report Share Posted April 12, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudkow60 Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 Not outperform your Robbie? Um... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helonorth Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 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.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 Not outperform an R44? What type of souped up R44 you putting around in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted April 16, 2017 Report Share Posted April 16, 2017 Just google "OH-58A/C operators manual" and check out Chapter 7. All the performance information is in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 16, 2017 Report Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 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 April 16, 2017 by pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helonorth Posted April 16, 2017 Report Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 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 April 16, 2017 by helonorth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 17, 2017 Report Share Posted April 17, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 17, 2017 Report Share Posted April 17, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 17, 2017 Report Share Posted April 17, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted April 17, 2017 Report Share Posted April 17, 2017 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... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Hunt Posted April 18, 2017 Report Share Posted April 18, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted April 18, 2017 Report Share Posted April 18, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 18, 2017 Report Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 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 April 18, 2017 by pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) 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 April 19, 2017 by SBuzzkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) 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.flightglobal.com/news/articles/downsized-us-army-to-pass-on-533-shunned-oh-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 April 19, 2017 by SBuzzkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helonorth Posted April 19, 2017 Report Share Posted April 19, 2017 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.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-07-21/retiring-army-bells-not-heading-civvy-street 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnr032 Posted April 21, 2017 Report Share Posted April 21, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.