apiaguy Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 I see schweizer added a new model aircraft to the type certificate revision 28. The 333M???I just can't understand why a manufacturer today would specifically disallow a new aircraft to receive an FAA airworthiness certificate!?!? Who cares if it is a military version. It conforms to the type certificate! I guess schweizer is up to the same old crap as Bell. It goes to show that the manufacturer only wants to sell new aircraft at full price to US customers.... if a military gets a deal on an aircraft price the manufacturer doesn't want that price decrease to cross into the civilian market... especially with parts because now there will be tons of surplus parts in years to come for the 333 and Schweizer has so conveniently nixed their future use. Quote
HelliBoy Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Do you have the article where you saw this?? I was at the factory in Elmira a couple months ago and they had a four bladed 333 they were testing. They developed the four bladed system for the FireScout, which is basically a 333 with a black box and servo compartment instead of a crew compartment, and they mentioned that they were coming out with a new model soon. They also had about a dozen desert camo'd 333s they were sending to Saudi Arabia...I cant say I blame them for making the 333M distinction; the civil 333 market seems anemic at best and they needed to tweak some things to make it more attractive to military buyers. Why should they care what civilian buyers think when it doesnt sell well in the US market anyways?? Would you rather they stopped making them alltogether? BTW almost every model helicopter with civil and military versions I can think of does this. The most recent example being the EC145 and the UH-72. Same but different. Quote
500E Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Keep looking at the 333 just cant get to out the 500 Quote
apiaguy Posted October 3, 2007 Author Posted October 3, 2007 No no no..... I don't care if they make a new configuration "M" for military. Like you said alot of others do too. The problem is that they specifically say in the type certificate that it can NEVER be issued an airworthiness certificate and ALL parts that were ever with a 269D "M" are unairworthy and can't be used on an airworthy civilian ship.Look at the type certificate data sheet... see note 11 Quote
PhotoFlyer Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Perhaps it is because the parts and aircraft were manufactured in a way that doesn't comply with the type certificate. If so, then they couldn't be certified, which is why they may have said that. Quote
apiaguy Posted October 4, 2007 Author Posted October 4, 2007 well, I would agree because that's what other manufacturers have done..... BUT, this model and configuration is SPECIFICALLY listed on the type certificate data sheet including serial numbers so it is a type certified product by the FAA they just exempted it from receiving an airworthiness certificate Quote
mechanic Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Exactly my feeling Also, the OH-6/369, too???? Quote
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.